Ashers cake controversy.

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Milltown Row2

Quote from: J70 on October 10, 2018, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 10, 2018, 11:18:57 AM
Its all about the slogan.
If I had a cake shop and someone asked me to bake a cake with "Bring back hanging" on it I'd tell them where to go.

What was the slogan they were looking to have inscribed?

(I live in the US and I'm not up to date with the details of this case).

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

J70

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 10, 2018, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 10, 2018, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 10, 2018, 11:18:57 AM
Its all about the slogan.
If I had a cake shop and someone asked me to bake a cake with "Bring back hanging" on it I'd tell them where to go.

What was the slogan they were looking to have inscribed?

(I live in the US and I'm not up to date with the details of this case).



Seriously??

Milltown Row2

was meant to be a pic of bert and Ernie, not sure of teh exact one
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea


Gold

Junior's condemnation of the money spent on it..... ;D

Breathtaking
"Cheeky Charlie McKenna..."

Main Street

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 10, 2018, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 10, 2018, 12:24:13 PM
Do I remember correctly the fella "targeted" Ashers knowing they wouldn't make the cake and it would be a big shit storm ?

While I'm unsure about the ruling as it does raise some interesting issues and conflict, I certainly would have no sympathy for the "victim" the way you normally would in a discrimination case. The whole thing just felt engineered
.
As I understad the ruling, the judges got the perspective spot on, the refusal of service wasn't  about their sexuality or rrefusing service to homosexuals, it was about the message, therefore the right to to disagree is protected under the freedom of speech.

gallsman

Quote from: J70 on October 10, 2018, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 10, 2018, 11:18:57 AM
Its all about the slogan.
If I had a cake shop and someone asked me to bake a cake with "Bring back hanging" on it I'd tell them where to go.

What was the slogan they were looking to have inscribed?

(I live in the US and I'm not up to date with the details of this case).

"Support gay marriage" I think.

trailer

Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 11:02:06 AM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.

Well, no, you shouldn't. Discrimination is wrong, period. What the ruling effectively says is that this wasn't discrimination.

Yes you should. And the supreme court agrees.

David McKeown

Quote from: five points on October 10, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 11:50:02 AM
I haven't had an opportunity to read the judgement but my initial reaction is one of disappointment. I agreed whole heartedly with the issue raised by the judge at first instant. This wasn't a case of direct discrimination on the basis that Mr Lee was discriminated against because of his sexuality. This was indirect discrimination on the basis that those who would request such a message would predominantly be of the same sexuality. Indirect discrimination needs to be prevented as well.

I look forward to reading how the Supreme Court dealt with this issue.
Makes no sense. Otherwise I could march into a bakery in West Belfast and demand that they produce a cake with a "SUPPORT THE LVF!"slogan and it would be discrimination on the basis that those who would request such a message would predominantly be of the same sectarian or political background.

To be fair there are considerable differences. Whilst I could go through them I don't think I'd do them as much justice as District Judge Brownlee did. I'll see if I can provide a link.

I should add I'm pretty sure if I were to look back on this thread I could see my opinion change on this case based on that judgement. Initially I was of the view this was a grey area case but that has now changed.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner


David McKeown

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: five points on October 10, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 11:50:02 AM
I haven't had an opportunity to read the judgement but my initial reaction is one of disappointment. I agreed whole heartedly with the issue raised by the judge at first instant. This wasn't a case of direct discrimination on the basis that Mr Lee was discriminated against because of his sexuality. This was indirect discrimination on the basis that those who would request such a message would predominantly be of the same sexuality. Indirect discrimination needs to be prevented as well.

I look forward to reading how the Supreme Court dealt with this issue.
Makes no sense. Otherwise I could march into a bakery in West Belfast and demand that they produce a cake with a "SUPPORT THE LVF!"slogan and it would be discrimination on the basis that those who would request such a message would predominantly be of the same sectarian or political background.

To be fair there are considerable differences. Whilst I could go through them I don't think I'd do them as much justice as District Judge Brownlee did. I'll see if I can provide a link.

I should add I'm pretty sure if I were to look back on this thread I could see my opinion change on this case based on that judgement. Initially I was of the view this was a grey area case but that has now changed.

Actually having reread that decision Judge Brownlee held it to have been direct discrimination for the reason above. I feel it would have amounted to indirect discrimination but for the same reasoning.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Owenmoresider

Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

macdanger2

I agree that it wasn't discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as the judge said, they would have refused to make the cake for anyone.

I find it harder to understand that it wasn't discrimination on ground of political views though since they (presumably) wouldn't have refused to make a cake that said "oppose gay marriage"

Franko

Quote from: Ethan Tremblay on October 10, 2018, 12:47:54 PM
Think it was the wrong decision, strictly for the fact that they are citing their deeply held religious beliefs as the reasoning.  Are they denying services to adulterers, divorced couples, those who engage in premarital sex etc.

Cherry picking orthodox morality looks suspiciously like bigotry.

A spectacular misreading of the case at hand.  They have made it abundantly clear that they are not denying service to this man because of his sexual orientation.  They had served him in the past and have stated that they would continue to serve him in future.

I could be wrong but I'm also pretty sure that they would have refused requests for a cake saying "support adultery", "support divorce" or "support premarital sex".

David McKeown

Quote from: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner