Ashers cake controversy.

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

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

I am changing my mind on the verdict and moving towards cautiously agreeing with it. I can understand people pointing to extreme examples that it might throw up.

But consider if the verdict had gone the other way. Imagine a world where Tony the B&B owner would refuse your football squad because (whatever the real reason) he could say that you must be all gay if any of you were sharing a room. Or a bus driver who refused to allow you on because you were two men/women and could be gay. Etc, etc.

I think it is far better this way.
MWWSI 2017

Franko

Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 10:59:02 AM
I am changing my mind on the verdict and moving towards cautiously agreeing with it. I can understand people pointing to extreme examples that it might throw up.

But consider if the verdict had gone the other way. Imagine a world where Tony the B&B owner would refuse your football squad because (whatever the real reason) he could say that you must be all gay if any of you were sharing a room. Or a bus driver who refused to allow you on because you were two men/women and could be gay. Etc, etc.

I think it is far better this way.

You are obviously being disingenious here Muppet - the cases you mention are quite obviously discrimination due to sexuality and would have been treated as such no matter what way yesterday's verdict went.

muppet

Quote from: Franko on May 20, 2015, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 10:59:02 AM
I am changing my mind on the verdict and moving towards cautiously agreeing with it. I can understand people pointing to extreme examples that it might throw up.

But consider if the verdict had gone the other way. Imagine a world where Tony the B&B owner would refuse your football squad because (whatever the real reason) he could say that you must be all gay if any of you were sharing a room. Or a bus driver who refused to allow you on because you were two men/women and could be gay. Etc, etc.

I think it is far better this way.

You are obviously being disingenious here Muppet - the cases you mention are quite obviously discrimination due to sexuality and would have been treated as such no matter what way yesterday's verdict went.

Not at all, it would have depended on the verdict obviously, but if you could refuse business on the grounds of sexual orientation on the basis of your own religious beliefs, then things could have been very different.
MWWSI 2017

Jeepers Creepers

Anyway, they have said they are innocent in 'Gods' eyes. So matter closed.

screenexile

Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 20, 2015, 12:05:49 PM
Anyway, they have said they are innocent in 'Gods' eyes. So matter closed.

They said that the decision was in God's hands. . . if they appeal it does that mean God is wrong? Will they still believe in God then?

It's all very confusing!

nrico2006

What exactly did they want on the cake?  Surely the company had a right to refuse to do the cake if it was to do with marketing something that currently is illegal?
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

johnneycool

Quote from: nrico2006 on May 20, 2015, 12:15:59 PM
What exactly did they want on the cake?  Surely the company had a right to refuse to do the cake if it was to do with marketing something that currently is illegal?

Bert and Ernie.

Franko

Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 20, 2015, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 10:59:02 AM
I am changing my mind on the verdict and moving towards cautiously agreeing with it. I can understand people pointing to extreme examples that it might throw up.

But consider if the verdict had gone the other way. Imagine a world where Tony the B&B owner would refuse your football squad because (whatever the real reason) he could say that you must be all gay if any of you were sharing a room. Or a bus driver who refused to allow you on because you were two men/women and could be gay. Etc, etc.

I think it is far better this way.

You are obviously being disingenious here Muppet - the cases you mention are quite obviously discrimination due to sexuality and would have been treated as such no matter what way yesterday's verdict went.

Not at all, it would have depended on the verdict obviously, but if you could refuse business on the grounds of sexual orientation on the basis of your own religious beliefs, then things could have been very different.

That's the thing - they didn't refuse business on the grounds of sexual orientation. They refused business because they strongly disagreed with the message were being asked to provide.  They contend that the sexuality of the customer had nothing to do with their decision.  Now, if the judge had said " Ya know what, that's rubbish, based on the evidence I conclude that it's got nothing to do with the message you were asked to supply.  You obviously realised this man was gay and decided you weren't going to do business with him" then I'd have wholeheartedly agreed with her verdict.

Also, as nrico has said, they were asked to print a message supporting something which is currently illegal in this statelet (something I disagree with but that's another debate).  I wonder if the gay man had come in and asked someone with strong pacifist sympathies for a cake that said "Support Our Right to Bear Arms" would this case have played out the same.

Franko

Quote from: Cletus Fox on May 20, 2015, 12:21:44 PM
SSM in the north is not illegal. It is just not performed or recognised.

It is illegal - it's just not a criminal offence.  If two people of the same sex get 'married' their union is an illegal one.

David McKeown

Gay marriage is not illegal in Northern Ireland it is just simply not performed. Gay marriage that was performed elsewhere has to be recognised as a marriage currently so saying Support Gay Marriage is not supporting an illegal activity.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Pub Bore

I know these scenarios are hypothetical but based on yesterday's ruling:

I own a pub with an upstairs room for public hire.  I'm approached by a person to book the room for an event which he or she tells me will be a fund raiser to support the campaign for same sex marriage to be recognised in NI.  My reading of the ruling yesterday, where the judge clearly stated that the issue of same sex marriage was a political one, is that I would be within my rights to refuse that booking on the grounds that I don't let the room be used for political fund raisers as long as I stated there and then that this was the case and/or could point to a booking form on which this was stated etc?

Also had Ashers had a sign in the shop or on their website or in the T&C's etc stating that they did not ice cakes with a political message then they would have been covered??

David McKeown

Yeah I believe the ruling effectively said you could prevent the room being used for a support gay marriage fundraiser provided you were preventing it for every type of political fundraiser including but not limited to a support straight marriage (whatever that is) fundraiser.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

screenexile

Quote from: Pub Bore on May 20, 2015, 01:10:18 PM
I know these scenarios are hypothetical but based on yesterday's ruling:

I own a pub with an upstairs room for public hire.  I'm approached by a person to book the room for an event which he or she tells me will be a fund raiser to support the campaign for same sex marriage to be recognised in NI.  My reading of the ruling yesterday, where the judge clearly stated that the issue of same sex marriage was a political one, is that I would be within my rights to refuse that booking on the grounds that I don't let the room be used for political fund raisers as long as I stated there and then that this was the case and/or could point to a booking form on which this was stated etc?

Also had Ashers had a sign in the shop or on their website or in the T&C's etc stating that they did not ice cakes with a political message then they would have been covered??

Yeah I think that's correct!

Here's your man's cake design:


eddie d

Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 12:23:22 AM
Quote from: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 11:10:57 PM
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.

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?

topcuppla

The man went out of his way to be offended and got offended, but political correctness these days particularly around homosexuality is unbelievable and hence the media hype around it.