Ashers cake controversy.

[nrico2006]

Does a business have a right to refuse to provide their services? 

What has the actual ruling said - discrimination?  If so, on what grounds?

[muppet]

How can a Christian who runs a business be expected to engage in any business transaction that endorses practices that are contrary to Christian teaching?

The Law prevents discrimination, no matter how bigoted the business.

[armaghniac]

How can a Christian who runs a business be expected to engage in any business transaction that endorses practices that are contrary to Christian teaching?

The Law prevents discrimination, no matter how bigoted the business.

so I can into Asher's and ask for a cake that says "Jesus is the Devil" or "Send all Prods back to Britain"?

[muppet]

How can a Christian who runs a business be expected to engage in any business transaction that endorses practices that are contrary to Christian teaching?

The Law prevents discrimination, no matter how bigoted the business.

so I can into Asher's and ask for a cake that says "Jesus is the Devil" or "Send all Prods back to Britain"?

That latter whataboutery would also be clear discrimination and the former whataboutery would probably be considered offensive, but I am not sure of the law up there. But discrimination based on sexual orientation is enshrined in the law.

[MoChara]

The court ruled that they didn't discriminate against the individual though it was a political statement they were opposed to propagating.

I find myself quite conflicted in this, on the one hand while I don't agree with the Ashers personal politics and beliefs I can't see it as being fair and respectfulness of all to force them against their will to further something they disagree with, but then where do you draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable for refusal of sale if the case was different and they refused to serve the man because he was gay saying it went against their values to serve gay people, would that be their right.

However if we do go down the line of giving everyone the right to refuse their industry, if someone under your employ had a problem with something you make for example a Man Utd Cake because they supported Liverpool could they then use the protection of the law to say they couldn't carry out the work as it went against their values.

[screenexile]

The court ruled that they didn't discriminate against the individual though it was a political statement they were opposed to propagating.

I find myself quite conflicted in this, on the one hand while I don't agree with the Ashers personal politics and beliefs I can't see it as being fair and respectfulness of all to force them against their will to further something they disagree with, but then where do you draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable for refusal of sale if the case was different and they refused to serve the man because he was gay saying it went against their values to serve gay people, would that be their right.

However if we do go down the line of giving everyone the right to refuse their industry, if someone under your employ had a problem with something you make for example a Man Utd Cake because they supported Liverpool could they then use the protection of the law to say they couldn't carry out the work as it went against their values.

Is baking a cake for a gay couple's marriage furthering that particular cause? It's a cake... bake it and forget about it.

I'd imagine it's cost them a good chunk of money for something that had they just put the head down and made the cake nobody would have batted an eyelid at it!

[Ethan Tremblay]

Spot on Mo, where does the line be drawn if the court was to rule the other way.  People with genuine bigotry could use deep religious values as a fall back to discriminate at will if that were the case.   

The family clearly are deeply religious and the negative media will depict them as something they are not, but surely they should know there's a difference in writing a sentence on a cake which they will never see again and attending gay pride rally's for example.   

[muppet]

The court ruled that they didn't discriminate against the individual though it was a political statement they were opposed to propagating.

I find myself quite conflicted in this, on the one hand while I don't agree with the Ashers personal politics and beliefs I can't see it as being fair and respectfulness of all to force them against their will to further something they disagree with, but then where do you draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable for refusal of sale if the case was different and they refused to serve the man because he was gay saying it went against their values to serve gay people, would that be their right.

However if we do go down the line of giving everyone the right to refuse their industry, if someone under your employ had a problem with something you make for example a Man Utd Cake because they supported Liverpool could they then use the protection of the law to say they couldn't carry out the work as it went against their values.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/court-rules-against-ni-christian-bakers-in-gay-cake-case-1.2841186

...The Belfast Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier ruling that Ashers Baking Company discriminated against gay man Gareth Lee in the so-called "gay cake" case.

On Monday, three Court of Appeal judges found that the company had discriminated against Mr Lee, a gay right activist, on grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006....


What am I missing?

The point is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation among other criteria.

If they had refused to bake a Man. United cake, to take your example, I don't think the law would have a problem with it, as it wouldn't come under the discrimination categories as defined by the law.

These include...

Age
Disability
Gender
Race
Religious and Political
Sexual Orientation

....among others.

[armaghniac]

That latter whataboutery would also be clear discrimination and the former whataboutery would probably be considered offensive, but I am not sure of the law up there. But discrimination based on sexual orientation is enshrined in the law.

They did not discriminate on the basis of the person's sexual orientation, but on the offensive political slogan debasing marriage that they put on the cake.

[muppet]

That latter whataboutery would also be clear discrimination and the former whataboutery would probably be considered offensive, but I am not sure of the law up there. But discrimination based on sexual orientation is enshrined in the law.

They did not discriminate on the basis of the person's sexual orientation, but on the offensive political slogan debasing marriage that they put on the cake.

That is what they said.

However, the judge and also appeals judges found otherwise. See above.

[AZOffaly]

What was the slogan?

[muppet]

What was the slogan?

From the link above..

...Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, had wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the phrase "Support Gay Marriage" for a private function marking International Day Against Homophobia. He paid the £36.50 cost in full at Ashers'...

[AZOffaly]

I can see it's political, or at least socially provocative, but how does it debase marriage?

[omaghjoe]

That latter whataboutery would also be clear discrimination and the former whataboutery would probably be considered offensive, but I am not sure of the law up there. But discrimination based on sexual orientation is enshrined in the law.

They did not discriminate on the basis of the person's sexual orientation, but on the offensive political slogan debasing marriage that they put on the cake.

Wasnt their defence based on this moral conscience thing tho? From what I remember they didnt really properly defend the charge directly, which is probably why the judges ruled against them.

The charge should have been for withholding their services for political reasons, which they would have had no defence against.

So in terms of the law the courts made the right decision for the wrong reasons, ....tho Im not sure thats how the law works.

Eejits should have said they were too busy and left it at that... but then they would have missed out on all this publicity.

[general_lee]

I can see it's political, or at least socially provocative, but how does it debase marriage?

It doesn't. Believers of the wizard in the sky for some reason in all their insular wisdom think that marriage is a concept is theirs and that the law of the land should reflect their backward beliefs. Get it right up ya ashers