Ashers cake controversy.

[eddie d]

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?

[StGallsGAA]

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.

Would you change your mind if you bought 5 loaves and they guaranteed you could feed 5000 people with them?

[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?

[armaghniac]

Well see if someone goes along to a Gay bakery and orders a "Save Ulster from Sodomy" cake, with the Equality Commission support the case.

[Oraisteach]

Nice synopsis, David, but here in the US, the Supreme Court (split along gender lines) upheld that the for-profit company Holly Hobby could, on religious grounds, refuse to include contraception in the healthcare plan mandated under the Affordable Care Act.  Justice Kagan, in dissent, argued that following that line of thought, a company, citing religious objections, could opt not to comply with sex discrimination laws.

[TheOptimist]

Let's not forget here either, religion is a choice or an opinion, sexuality is a fact!

[T Fearon]

It is clear that in most tribunals here,those taking action assisted by the Equality Commission and funded by the public purse,are nearly always favoured when the verdict is delivered,as if to justify the Equality Commission's existence,and it is well nigh impossible to successfully defend these no matter how sound one's argument is.

I am no legal eagle,but a bakery is charged with supplying bakery products to any and all members of the public who willingly decide to transact with them.However anything supplementary (i e cake decoration) to this is surely at the discretion of the owners.

[Tony Baloney]

I would say all the publicity has been good for business.

Can't say I agree with the decision. Any business owner should have the discretionary right as to the service they provide as long as they are not in breach of contract.

[StGallsGAA]

I am no legal eagle,but a bakery is charged with supplying bakery products to any and all members of the public who willingly decide to transact with them.However anything supplementary (i e cake decoration) to this is surely at the discretion of the owners.

If they offer a cake decoration service to one they must offer to all.  Why don't you test it out Tony by nipping into a sports shop in Newry,  buying a Down top and asking them to print  "I'm gay and would ride Kalum King in a heartbeat". 

If they refuse you could pocket £5,000!!!   Save you entering Take A Break competitions for months!!! 

[T Fearon]

I won't,because a) I'm not gay and even if I was b) Kalum King wouldn't float my boat.

Correct me if I'm wrong,but has anyone else ever been asked commercially to ice a message on a cake supporting an issue which is politically controversial? I could have half looked over this if the bakery had been asked to ice a bog standard wedding day message on the cake,with no reference to the gender of the couple,as is the norm with wedding cakes.

[muppet]

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?

[east down gael]

I'm slightly confused as to the actual ramifications of this ruling. If I run a print shop and someone came in with an order to make a number of posters with a political message I disagreed with,something pro israel for talk sake, would I now have to make them?

[whitey]

I'm slightly confused as to the actual ramifications of this ruling. If I run a print shop and someone came in with an order to make a number of posters with a political message I disagreed with,something pro israel for talk sake, would I now have to make them?

My guess is that unless the message were illegal or an incitement to hatred/crime you would have to take the job

[The Subbie]

I'm slightly confused as to the actual ramifications of this ruling. If I run a print shop and someone came in with an order to make a number of posters with a political message I disagreed with,something pro israel for talk sake, would I now have to make them?

My guess is that unless the message were illegal or an incitement to hatred/crime you would have to take the job

easy way out would be to charge a fortune for the work,totally take the piss with the quote, then you see how much conviction the customer had to their cause

[Franko]

I'm slightly confused as to the actual ramifications of this ruling. If I run a print shop and someone came in with an order to make a number of posters with a political message I disagreed with,something pro israel for talk sake, would I now have to make them?

My guess is that unless the message were illegal or an incitement to hatred/crime you would have to take the job

easy way out would be to charge a fortune for the work,totally take the piss with the quote, then you see how much conviction the customer had to their cause

No it's not.  If you couldn't justify your extra cost and the customer decided to take you to court you would most certainly be prosecuted for discrimination on the same grounds.