Ashers cake controversy.

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

Previous topic - Next topic

gallsman

Quote from: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 19, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
Quote from: dferg on May 19, 2015, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: dferg on May 19, 2015, 01:00:28 PM
Quote from: OakleafCounty on May 19, 2015, 12:16:01 PM
I don't see how the bakery discriminated against the customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. The reason for refusal of service was the message on the cake and not the customers sexual orientation.  If the customer had ordered a normal cake they wouldn't have refused service and if a straight person had ordered the same image it would probably have been refused.

The cake shop has to make the cake because they are a cake shop.  If I ordered a cake that said 'I love Samantha', I am not asking the cake shop to endorse that message or ask if Samantha is my wife/girlfriend/bit on the side, just to make the cake.

A gay person shouldn't have to cower in all the shops asking if they would mind making a cake.

It's a fair point. I think the judge has decided that the legislation is designed to rip away mealy-mouthed excuses for not serving someone. If it is accepted that someone doesn't have to make a cake with a gay message on the basis of their religion then they'll soon be claiming they can't serve someone at 2.20pm on a Tuesday afternoon because of their religion and it's a complete coincidence that the customer at that time happens to be gay.

Still, that's not to say there are no repercussions from such a decision. When a print shop in west Belfast is asked to produce t-shirts dedicated to the memory of the Shankill Butchers, don't say you weren't warned.
You are right, I was thinking that as well.  I guess the cake shop could refuse on the grounds of incitement to racial hatred in the example you give.

Another example (and I'm obv. playing devils advocate here) but I'm guessing that ruling means that the bogside branch of the t-shirt shop in question would now be forced to supply t-shirts dedicated to the great work of the parachute regiment?

That's the concern alright.
So what?

So that it would be perfectly understandable that somebody working in a t shirt printing shop in the Bogside would not wish to produce a t shirt glorifying the Paras, nor should they fear prosecution for maintaining that position.

Milltown Row2

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
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

BennyCake


eddie d

Quote from: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 11:41:11 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2015, 11:38:33 AM
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

eddie d

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 19, 2015, 06:34:56 PM
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

give her dixie

next stop, September 10, for number 4......

Milltown Row2

Quote from: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 19, 2015, 06:34:56 PM
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?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

eddie d

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 19, 2015, 08:52:48 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 19, 2015, 06:34:56 PM
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?

armaghniac

Serving food on the Twelfth is not a good analogy, chipper vans chose where to go and they are serving individuals not required to endorse political campaigns.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

T Fearon

Nonsensical decision akin to suing all No voters in forthcoming freestate referendum for being anti gay. :(

imtommygunn

Quote from: T Fearon on May 19, 2015, 09:21:45 PM
Nonsensical decision akin to suing all No voters in forthcoming freestate referendum for being anti gay. :(

;D Another ridiculous analogy but well worth the laugh!

Orior

Quote from: BennyCake on May 19, 2015, 06:41:05 PM
Mrs Asher's a babe.

lol. So was Ned Flanders' missus, and look what happened her!
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

David McKeown

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.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Apparently so

While carry on hi

Personally, it think its a disgrace you need a licence for a trailer now. Ffs

muppet

Quote from: David McKeown on May 19, 2015, 10:51:10 PM
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.

Thanks for explaining all of that so succinctly.
MWWSI 2017