gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM

Title: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: east down gael on November 07, 2014, 07:07:38 PM
Crazy stuff altogether.bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on November 07, 2014, 07:16:12 PM
One wonders if they will be equally proactive against organisations trying to coerce their employees to wear poppies.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on November 07, 2014, 09:42:25 PM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: orangeman on November 07, 2014, 11:10:34 PM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Puckoon on November 07, 2014, 11:58:08 PM
Did you just compare homosexuality to terrorism?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on November 08, 2014, 12:04:19 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.
Homosexuality is the same as Al Qaeda right enough.

It's pretty simple. A company should be allowed to dictate which products they sell.
For their refusal to sell such a product, Asher's Bakery are a lousy shower of backward, Free P loving idiots.
And they probably all bum each other anyway (going by any spokesman for their company I've ever seen).
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Olly on November 08, 2014, 12:10:07 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.

You should get a job in the media for the crack.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trasna man on November 08, 2014, 12:16:50 AM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.
the boys should have told them to
SHOVE IT UP THEIR HOLES
i'll get my coat
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: orangeman on November 08, 2014, 12:18:28 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.

You should get a job in the media for the crack.

My point, although not well made, is who or what decides what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour ?.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 12:28:51 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.

You should get a job in the media for the crack.

My point, although not well made, is who or what decides what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour ?.
In the south it's Joe Duffy
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Puckoon on November 08, 2014, 12:29:10 AM
Well law, for one.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 08, 2014, 12:31:02 AM
What if they refused to make a cake that said:

"Have a bet..you might double it or more!"

"Nuclear energy is clean energy"

"Wind turbines embellish the landscape"

"A few pints will do no harm"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: orangeman on November 08, 2014, 12:45:00 AM
Well law, for one.

Fair enough.

Is there a law in UK / USA for example that would prevent businesses making products that support terrorist organisations ?.

Where would this end and who arbitrates ?.

Gaa managers saying things after a match or on Twitter is now a potential infraction. Who decides ?.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on November 08, 2014, 12:54:38 AM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.
It was a priest that wanted the cake? Good to hear about somebody in the Catholic Church with tolerant views for a change.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 06:32:48 AM
It seems to me this bakery was deliberately chosen by one of the gay men concerned in the full prior knowledge that it wouldn't comply with his request.That is the greatest travesty of justice,deliberate targeting of Christian businesses to see if they will act contrary to their beliefs.

It could all backfire if the court decides that Christian businesses have a right to uphold their beliefs in the world of commerce.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: sensethetone on November 08, 2014, 07:28:09 AM
i think it is reverse discrimination.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Myles Na G. on November 08, 2014, 07:58:29 AM
If the bakers had said, 'we're happy to bake you a cake, but we have a policy of refusing to decorate cakes with political slogans' then they may have been within their rights. What is unclear, however, is whether they refused simply because they disapprove of gay weddings. If that's the case, then they're in the wrong, whether they've been the target of spiteful targeting or not. If you allow people providing the public with a service the right to exercise their personal beliefs, where does that stop? Maybe another baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding, or a Catholic-Protestant wedding, or the wedding of an immigrant couple. Then there'd be the bar owner who'd refuse to serve Jews, or people of colour, or Irish...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: JUst retired on November 08, 2014, 08:03:10 AM
Surely there are plenty of instances in Ireland,north and south where travellers have been refused to hold weddings in some establishments?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Bingo on November 08, 2014, 08:39:35 AM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.
It was a priest that wanted the cake? Good to hear about somebody in the Catholic Church with tolerant views for a change.

The priest was the groom....well one of them.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: orangeman on November 08, 2014, 09:20:59 AM
Surely there are plenty of instances in Ireland,north and south where travellers have been refused to hold weddings in some establishments?

Not that long ago, shops in the north were told / instructed / encouraged that they shouldn't do business with certain people / organisations. People from religious divides were discouraged from working in particular places.

The law my arse.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omagh_gael on November 08, 2014, 09:28:19 AM
Would a gay baker be happy baking a 'Marriage is between a man and woman' cake?

Not gay bashing here btw.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Throw ball on November 08, 2014, 10:12:24 AM
If the bakers had said, 'we're happy to bake you a cake, but we have a policy of refusing to decorate cakes with political slogans' then they may have been within their rights. What is unclear, however, is whether they refused simply because they disapprove of gay weddings. If that's the case, then they're in the wrong, whether they've been the target of spiteful targeting or not. If you allow people providing the public with a service the right to exercise their personal beliefs, where does that stop? Maybe another baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding, or a Catholic-Protestant wedding, or the wedding of an immigrant couple. Then there'd be the bar owner who'd refuse to serve Jews, or people of colour, or Irish...

Although your point is well made in the market place this should lead to the business getting less business and therefore affecting their future profitability. A punishment of sorts.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: lynchbhoy on November 08, 2014, 10:24:04 AM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.
It was a priest that wanted the cake? Good to hear about somebody in the Catholic Church with tolerant views for a change.

The priest was the groom....well one of them.
Unfunny by you two

Completely uncalled for

All I can say is that you both come across here as a pair of pricks
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: lynchbhoy on November 08, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
I actually think the baker was at least morally wrong to refuse them

But I don't think he can be accountable in law

Def don't think the courts in the north would find against him if he trots out the old ' right to refuse! Line

I know of a few wedding/event venues that will prob refuse to hold weddings for a certain 'ethnic minority' new to the locality after one of their weddings two weeks ago wrecked the venue, slashed a young barman in the face ( he still may yet lose sight in one eye) and attacked other staff after a row broke out amongst the party.
These were not travellers or foreigners either.
I don't think the venue will have to answer to the law for refusing such business in future!

But a far cry from making a fecking cake !!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on November 08, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
I don't think this case has a hope of success, and it makes a mockery of the equality agenda, in my opinion. Listening to the radio this week, it's clear that even those in the LGBT groups aren't enthusiastic about it.

Personally, i'd have no time for this bakery, given its position on this. But it didn't refuse to serve a gay person. That, for me, is the crucial point, in terms of equality.

And some of the homophobic comments on this thread are depressing.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:50:02 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Yes (if a complaint was made)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:51:39 AM
If someone came into the bakery and asked them to bake a cake glorifying Islamic State or AL Qaeda, would some govt body take this on ?.

Completely OTT.

You should get a job in the media for the crack.

My point, although not well made, is who or what decides what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour ?.

The law does - hence the case
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:55:27 AM
It seems to me this bakery was deliberately chosen by one of the gay men concerned in the full prior knowledge that it wouldn't comply with his request.That is the greatest travesty of justice,deliberate targeting of Christian businesses to see if they will act contrary to their beliefs.

It could all backfire if the court decides that Christian businesses have a right to uphold their beliefs in the world of commerce.

Spiritualists have the right to believe how they like - but their actions have to be within the law.

You or I do not have the right to pick and chose which laws we like.

This case will help define the law. Whatever the result bring it on
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:58:34 AM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:00:50 AM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.

Congratulations on your successful time travel. Be sure to join us again sometime, Its a cheery reminder of how far we have come
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
 Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:04:10 PM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
 Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Would a cricket loving baker refuse to decorate a "gaa cake" whatever that might be?

Surely 2 gay men wanting a cake celebrating their mutual love and their desire to get married could reasonably be able to get this service in a bakers that decorates cakes? Not a subset of cake decorators but all cake decorators?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 03:09:14 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?

I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
 no baseball caps
 no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ? 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:12:09 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?

I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
 no baseball caps
 no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 03:26:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?

I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
 no baseball caps
 no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that

Of course he knows this. You should know by now that divisiveness is part of his MO

Essentially he is advocating for a "common sense" form of apartheid where people only go to <insert-minority-here> "friendly" places.

Dangerous chap, this Seafoid.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on November 08, 2014, 04:09:23 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

You two need get a life every thread seems to descend into some sort of bitch fight between you two.
Send each other your opinions via IM because everyone else is sick of reading through your idiotic drivels to read what anyone else has to say.

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?

I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
 no baseball caps
 no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that

Of course he knows this. You should know by now that divisiveness is part of his MO

Essentially he is advocating for a "common sense" form of apartheid where people only go to <insert-minority-here> "friendly" places.

Dangerous chap, this Seafoid.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: thejuice on November 08, 2014, 04:09:33 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 04:33:45 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be discriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 04:43:36 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 05:01:31 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on November 08, 2014, 05:37:07 PM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
 Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Would a cricket loving baker refuse to decorate a "gaa cake" whatever that might be?

Surely 2 gay men wanting a cake celebrating their mutual love and their desire to get married could reasonably be able to get this service in a bakers that decorates cakes? Not a subset of cake decorators but all cake decorators?
No one was refused a wedding cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on November 08, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 08:04:21 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.
As far as I know you are not Eamonn Dunphy or Spillane and you are not paid money to talk shite.
So you must do it out of a sense of service. I find your whole schtick rather tedious at this stage. Why don't you track someone else? You never have anything to say on any of the threads you parachute into.
I honestly couldn't care less what you think.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 08:12:20 PM
There a lot of people in NI who are not particularly fond of gay marriage and bringing them to court is not going to help IMO
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApuOOIv9LZY

People can have equal rights under the law but that doesn't mean they have the right to ask a business to produce whatever they want.
It would be the same with asking a baker in London to bake a fox hunting cake. Why bother ? 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Olly on November 08, 2014, 08:15:59 PM
I'm big into gays and stuff but cakes are surely tacky now. A lot of weddings I attend have profiteroles or marsh mallows in chocolate fountains.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 08:46:45 PM
I'm big into gays and stuff but cakes are surely tacky now. A lot of weddings I attend have profiteroles or marsh mallows in chocolate fountains.

Puff pastry is all the rage now Olly.

That has to go down as a miss........
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 09:34:24 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 09:44:25 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.
As far as I know you are not Eamonn Dunphy or Spillane and you are not paid money to talk shite.
So you must do it out of a sense of service. I find your whole schtick rather tedious at this stage. Why don't you track someone else? You never have anything to say on any of the threads you parachute into.
I honestly couldn't care less what you think.

More insults.  ::)

It is ironic for you, of all people , to talk about someone having nothing to say. You hardly ever actually "say" anything Seafoid, your usual schtick is to ask leading questions then follow up with a barrage of links. The few times that you actually venture an opinion of your own, as in this case, your shallowness of thought becomes obvious.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 09:48:37 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.
As far as I know you are not Eamonn Dunphy or Spillane and you are not paid money to talk shite.
So you must do it out of a sense of service. I find your whole schtick rather tedious at this stage. Why don't you track someone else? You never have anything to say on any of the threads you parachute into.
I honestly couldn't care less what you think.

More insults.  ::)

It is ironic for you, of all people , to talk about someone having nothing to say. You hardly ever actually "say" anything Seafoid, your usual schtick is to ask leading questions then follow up with a barrage of links. The few times that you actually venture an opinion of your own, as in this case, your shallowness of thought becomes obvious.
Fine Sheehy
If it's so pointless why do you follow me around ?
Could you not latch on to someone more interesting  ?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 09:51:58 PM
There a lot of people in NI who are not particularly fond of gay marriage and bringing them to court is not going to help IMO
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApuOOIv9LZY

People can have equal rights under the law but that doesn't mean they have the right to ask a business to produce whatever they want.
It would be the same with asking a baker in London to bake a fox hunting cake. Why bother ?

There was a time when people would have viewed marching for civil rights in Missisippi or Derry as "provocative" acts.

Stop being such a dinosaur.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:00:16 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:05:10 PM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
 Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Would a cricket loving baker refuse to decorate a "gaa cake" whatever that might be?

Surely 2 gay men wanting a cake celebrating their mutual love and their desire to get married could reasonably be able to get this service in a bakers that decorates cakes? Not a subset of cake decorators but all cake decorators?
No one was refused a wedding cake.
I was answering the ridiculous point that gay men should go to a gay bakers for their baked goods needs.

Nobody is claiming they were refused a cake because they were gay. They were however refused a cake proclaiming their gay marriage. Ashers by their own admission accept that they are happy with messages (verbal or otherwise) in favour of marriage. It was only when the gay dimension was introduced that the offer of service was removed. Sounds a bit like discrimination to me.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:15:21 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: StGallsGAA on November 08, 2014, 10:21:02 PM
Strangely the discriminated against  party in this whole affair  has managed to avoid the spotlight thusfar. By any chance might Ashers have been deliberately targeted to produce a pro gay marriage cake in the knowledge they'd refuse?  Would the gay community find it acceptable if  Christian groups infiltrated the Kremlin and wrecked their buzz?? Doubt it. 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:22:04 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

It was you who said that there were "strong arguments" for and against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I simply ask that you post the "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination. If you list them I will respond to them. If you don't believe there are "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination then just say so. But if you are holding to your original view then there isn't any reason for not posting the detail.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:23:13 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

It was you who said that there were "strong arguments" for and against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I simply ask that you post the "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination. If you list them I will respond to them. If you don't believe there are "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination then just say so. But if you are holding to your original view then there isn't any reason for not posting the detail.

No I didn't, read it again.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:29:33 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 10:33:30 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:38:16 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:38:38 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:39:43 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?

Most senior members of the Catholic Church believe Canon Law trumps civil law.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:40:37 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.

Which specific laws on discrimination and religious freedom are you referring to?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:42:07 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?

Most senior members of the Catholic Church believe Canon Law trumps civil law.
Indeed they do. But we are not advocating that form of delusion
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.

Which specific laws on discrimination and religious freedom are you referring to?

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no laws regarding either or both sexual discrimination and religious freedom?

Such as the Equality Act or the Equal Status Act 2000?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3)

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b)  (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c)  (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 10:50:06 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:53:47 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.

And if Asher's had a policy on not providing message in respect of marriage then they would be in clear.

As it is we have to await the verdict of the court. Its not clear cut but my view is that the case is worth pursuing. If only in the name of clarity.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:57:16 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.

Which specific laws on discrimination and religious freedom are you referring to?

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no laws regarding either or both sexual discrimination and religious freedom?

Such as the Equality Act or the Equal Status Act 2000?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3)

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b)  (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c)  (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).


You quote RoI legistion that rules against discrimination. I thought you were going to provide some NI/UK legislation or Common Law decision that permitted discrimination OR gave religious freedom priority over wider laws. That is what this case will de governed by
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 11:00:55 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.

And if Asher's had a policy on not providing message in respect of marriage then they would be in clear.

As it is we have to await the verdict of the court. Its not clear cut but my view is that the case is worth pursuing. If only in the name of clarity.
Surel they only need a policy that states they they have the right to refuse requests to add any message which could be considered offensive.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:03:50 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.

And if Asher's had a policy on not providing message in respect of marriage then they would be in clear.

As it is we have to await the verdict of the court. Its not clear cut but my view is that the case is worth pursuing. If only in the name of clarity.
Surel they only need a policy that states they they have the right to refuse requests to add any message which could be considered offensive.
Sure if they had a sign up saying that i'm sure it would have come to light by now.

The reasonableness of "offensive" would still need to be tested
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:04:30 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.

Which specific laws on discrimination and religious freedom are you referring to?

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no laws regarding either or both sexual discrimination and religious freedom?

Such as the Equality Act or the Equal Status Act 2000?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3)

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b)  (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c)  (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the “marital status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).


You quote RoI legistion that rules against discrimination. I thought you were going to provide some NI/UK legislation or Common Law decision that permitted discrimination OR gave religious freedom priority over wider laws. That is what this case will de governed by

My understanding is that the NI laws are even tighter on discrimination. For example search for the words 'religious' and 'sexual' in this: http://www.equality.nisra.gov.uk/RaceDisShortGuide2010.pdf (http://www.equality.nisra.gov.uk/RaceDisShortGuide2010.pdf).
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:29:54 PM
Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services

Why?

Why should religious beliefs be elevated the laws that everyone else has to obey?

Do you seriously want every religious belief to have this elevation?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:31:56 PM
Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services

To be honest I don't think it needs a law.

Ask yourself why you don't ask for sausage and chips in a kosher restaurant in new York.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:34:14 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:37:36 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

Hence my opening question:

"Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on November 09, 2014, 10:23:41 AM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 09, 2014, 01:23:57 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

I think is a key point. Everyone who wanted a cake with that message would be refused, thus there is no discrimination.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 09, 2014, 08:08:16 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

Hence my opening question:

"Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?"

I may have mis-read your earlier post.

Lets be clear I am in no way to blame for this misunderstanding. The fault lies entirely with Messrs J. Sexton & A. Guinness
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 09, 2014, 08:10:31 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

Incitement to racial hatred is a criminal offence so anyone would be perfectly legal entitled to not make/decorate that cake

Support gay marriage is not illegal
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LCohen on November 09, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

I think is a key point. Everyone who wanted a cake with that message would be refused, thus there is no discrimination.

You might be right. the case will decide.

Nobody is claiming that that was the basis of the disrimination.

The message on the cake proclaimed equality. That message was refused and that is the basis of the alleged discrimination. Asher's are claiming religious freedom and that is what is flagging my attention to the case.

I had thought it was crystal clear that religious freedom could not be used to obviate the law.

I for one would have no difficulty with a court decision that siad that discrimination had not taken place but emphasised the point that religious freedom would not have been a defence had discrimination taken place
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on November 09, 2014, 10:59:29 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

Hence my opening question:

"Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?"

I may have mis-read your earlier post.

Lets be clear I am in no way to blame for this misunderstanding. The fault lies entirely with Messrs J. Sexton & A. Guinness

I see. I was talking to a Mister Trapiche.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on November 09, 2014, 11:09:58 PM

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
According to the law of the statelet, there is nothing wrong with discrimination in this sphere,  where the state selectively does not support or recognising gay marriage. 
As i explained, this is a moronic action to look for that legal clarity, that's what I think is wrong.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on November 10, 2014, 04:09:57 PM
This is a difficult one, if it was a product that by its very nature offended the religious beliefs of those being asked to produce then I would have no issue with them refusing its production, the example of the non kosher food from the kosher butchers being a good example.  Conversely if this was a service and wasn't being offered to someone because of an individual trait such as their religion or sexuality I would be up in arms. This though is a bit of an in between, as far as I understand and I could be wrong but Ashers agreed to provide a wedding cake to the couple but refused to decorate it with the symbol of a group that advocates Gay marriage?  That seems to be one that falls in between the two extremes, I would be interested in the ruling in this case.  Think though that in all fairness Ashers should have some protection from costs in this situation.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2015, 04:07:07 PM
Ashers can count themselves lucky!!

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/03/bakery-will-pay-up-to-150000-for-discriminating-against-gay-couple/

Quote
A bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple, and is liable to pay up to $150,000 in damages, it was announced on Monday.
Now facing a fine of up to $150,000 (£93,000), the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa which refused to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding may go bankrupt.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced on Monday that it had concluded its investigation, and that the owners of Sweet Cakes had unlawfully discriminated.
The bakery may be made to pay up to $75,000 (£50,000) per person, meaning it could face paying damages of up to $150,000 (£100,000).
An amount will be determined at a hearing on 10 March.
The owners of Sweet Cakes, an Oregon Bakery which last year closed its doors after refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, later accused gay activists of using “militant, mafia-style tactics” to force their business to shut down.
They have since run the business from their home, after the bakery closed its doors.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the bakery, spoke at the Values Voter Summit in Washington DC, to say the fine was “definitely” enough to bankrupt them and their family.
Mr Klein suggested the state had “broken its own anti-discrimination laws”, saying a judge did not strike down the state’s same-sex marriage ban until way after the controversy took place.
Melissa Klein added: “It’s definitely impacted us pretty hard financially, and it’s been a little stressful, but…we have the Lord and so He’s been keeping us strong.”
The bakery posted pictures on its Facebook page in the summer of several cakes it had made for the ‘ex-gay’ Restored Hope Network, adding: “Cakes for Restored Hope Network. What a wonderful ministry!”
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: illdecide on February 03, 2015, 04:21:58 PM
So what happened Ashers? Did they get off?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on February 03, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
Is it any wonder that Cameron and the BBC dont want irish politicians to participate in a serious debate. Apologies if there is another thread about this.

Hot topics for irish politicians:
1) No gays allowed to give blood
2) People should be allowed to discriminate against gays
3) Flags
4) Parades
5) No fracking please, the earth is only 6,000 years old
etc etc
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on February 03, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
David Cameron wants NI politicians at the debate. (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/dup-sinn-fein-legal-action-tv-election-debates)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on February 03, 2015, 06:26:30 PM
DUP have started a war chest donation appeal to raise funds for Ashers legal expenses
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: tyssam5 on February 03, 2015, 11:08:52 PM
This is a difficult one, if it was a product that by its very nature offended the religious beliefs of those being asked to produce then I would have no issue with them refusing its production, the example of the non kosher food from the kosher butchers being a good example.  Conversely if this was a service and wasn't being offered to someone because of an individual trait such as their religion or sexuality I would be up in arms. This though is a bit of an in between, as far as I understand and I could be wrong but Ashers agreed to provide a wedding cake to the couple but refused to decorate it with the symbol of a group that advocates Gay marriage?  That seems to be one that falls in between the two extremes, I would be interested in the ruling in this case.  Think though that in all fairness Ashers should have some protection from costs in this situation.

So from your first sentence is it then perfectly fine for them to refuse a cake for any Catholic wedding? As we know some Free Presbyterians find that religion 'by it's very nature offensive'?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on February 04, 2015, 08:58:38 AM
This is a difficult one, if it was a product that by its very nature offended the religious beliefs of those being asked to produce then I would have no issue with them refusing its production, the example of the non kosher food from the kosher butchers being a good example.  Conversely if this was a service and wasn't being offered to someone because of an individual trait such as their religion or sexuality I would be up in arms. This though is a bit of an in between, as far as I understand and I could be wrong but Ashers agreed to provide a wedding cake to the couple but refused to decorate it with the symbol of a group that advocates Gay marriage?  That seems to be one that falls in between the two extremes, I would be interested in the ruling in this case.  Think though that in all fairness Ashers should have some protection from costs in this situation.

So from your first sentence is it then perfectly fine for them to refuse a cake for any Catholic wedding? As we know some Free Presbyterians find that religion 'by it's very nature offensive'?

As far as I know, Ashers didn't refuse to serve a gay person. They refused to make a particular type of cake that they considered to be offensive to their beliefs. So with regards to your Catholic example, it would be okay to refuse to make a specific type of cake for a Catholic wedding, but not okay to refuse to sell them one off the shelf. That would be my way of looking at it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on February 04, 2015, 09:11:42 AM
This is a difficult one, if it was a product that by its very nature offended the religious beliefs of those being asked to produce then I would have no issue with them refusing its production, the example of the non kosher food from the kosher butchers being a good example.  Conversely if this was a service and wasn't being offered to someone because of an individual trait such as their religion or sexuality I would be up in arms. This though is a bit of an in between, as far as I understand and I could be wrong but Ashers agreed to provide a wedding cake to the couple but refused to decorate it with the symbol of a group that advocates Gay marriage?  That seems to be one that falls in between the two extremes, I would be interested in the ruling in this case.  Think though that in all fairness Ashers should have some protection from costs in this situation.

So from your first sentence is it then perfectly fine for them to refuse a cake for any Catholic wedding? As we know some Free Presbyterians find that religion 'by it's very nature offensive'?

No that's most certainly not what my first sentence suggests. If a bakery refused to provide a cake to someone because of their religious beliefs (I.e because they were Catholic) that would not be fine as you put it because that's not a case that the product by its nature offending the religious beliefs that would be a situation where the service is refused to someone because of their religion. If however a bakery agreed to provide the cake but refused to decorate it with Catholic symbols because that offended their religious beliefs then that would be into an almost identical grey area as the Ashers case.

If however their was a religious requirement that prevented cakes being made a certain way (perhaps something akin to the way kosher products are made) then it might be acceptable on religious grounds to refuse to produce a cake but that's highly unlikely in the example you give.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on February 05, 2015, 01:26:44 PM
This thread is despairing to read, never mind the side swipes and occasional homophobia. 

I'd rather wait on the ruling but suffice to say, believing any church or religion's teaching is 'right' because it represents the 'view of the majority' is outdated, naive and possibly dangerous.

Homosexual activities were outlawed in NI until 1982 but that doesn't mean it was wrong, immoral or not happening! It just meant the law stated men could be prosecuted if apprehended. 

Times change, people's entrenched attitudes take a little longer, but I'm hoping for a sensible ruling here to give some that little nudge they need to accept life, in all its diversity, as it is now.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on February 05, 2015, 01:56:10 PM
This thread is despairing to read, never mind the side swipes and occasional homophobia. 

I'd rather wait on the ruling but suffice to say, believing any church or religion's teaching is 'right' because it represents the 'view of the majority' is outdated, naive and possibly dangerous.

Homosexual activities were outlawed in NI until 1982 but that doesn't mean it was wrong, immoral or not happening! It just meant the law stated men could be prosecuted if apprehended. 

Times change, people's entrenched attitudes take a little longer, but I'm hoping for a sensible ruling here to give some that little nudge they need to accept life, in all its diversity, as it is now.

What would amount to a "sensible ruling"?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: illdecide on February 05, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
This thread is despairing to read, never mind the side swipes and occasional homophobia. 

I'd rather wait on the ruling but suffice to say, believing any church or religion's teaching is 'right' because it represents the 'view of the majority' is outdated, naive and possibly dangerous.

Homosexual activities were outlawed in NI until 1982 but that doesn't mean it was wrong, immoral or not happening! It just meant the law stated men could be prosecuted if apprehended. 

Times change, people's entrenched attitudes take a little longer, but I'm hoping for a sensible ruling here to give some that little nudge they need to accept life, in all its diversity, as it is now.

What would amount to a "sensible ruling"?

"The Chair"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on February 05, 2015, 02:09:30 PM
What would amount to a "sensible ruling"?

"The Chair"

Putting the fence in offence.

I'll get my coat...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on March 26, 2015, 03:33:02 PM
In court today. Will be interesting.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 19, 2015, 09:17:58 AM
Judgement in this case due this morning. 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 19, 2015, 10:21:58 AM
Judge finds that Asher's did discriminate against gay couple over cake
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 10:59:56 AM
The correct decision. . . let's hope Tony doesn't get to open that B&B!!!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on May 19, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
Sensible & correct decision.
"The defendants are not a religious organisation. They are a business for profit. There are no exceptions available"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Shamrock Shore on May 19, 2015, 11:07:58 AM
No wonder the anti-happiness league don't want any changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann

My coat is already on..............
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 11:09:09 AM
I'm mildly surprised at the decision. Forget about religious exceptions. I would have thought there would be some wriggle room along the lines of asking someone to be creative, i.e. we wouldn't bake that type of cake for a straight customer either. Obviously not.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:09:49 AM
No wonder the anti-happiness league don't want any changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann

My coat is already on..............

You over egged that one.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
Sounds like a major f**k up with PA tweeting that Ashers were innocent first... a lot of people caught out badly by it!!!

LAD will have a field day!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 19, 2015, 11:20:03 AM
https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367202693484688/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367202693484688/?type=1&theater)

Purely for this I think it's worth it lol.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 11:24:22 AM
https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367202693484688/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367202693484688/?type=1&theater)

Purely for this I think it's worth it lol.

Those PA boyos caught a live one there!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 19, 2015, 11:30:37 AM
£500 fine, agreed in advance by both legal teams.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:33:10 AM
£500 fine, agreed in advance by both legal teams.

Well worth the publicity, especially as everyone testified that the cakes were lovely.
Perhaps it was all a stunt.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 11:35:12 AM
I'm surprised by that decision, and don't agree with it. Think it will set a dangerous precedent on what businesses are compelled to offer/accept.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 19, 2015, 11:38:14 AM
I'm surprised by the decision too actually. It won't do that business any harm in the short or long term I suspect but it will be interesting to see what kind of legal precedent it does set.

The die hards will do a whip round and £500 will probably not even be paid by them anyway.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 11:41:11 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:42:44 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.

It raises issues to be sure. I don't think large quoted companies can be allowed pick and choose, I think a one man business probably should, on the basis of free association. I suppose this case is somewhere in between. What happens if a business states in its T&Cs that it may refuse political commissions?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 11:49:39 AM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on May 19, 2015, 11:50:04 AM
Another nail in the coffin for ulster unionists.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 11:52:39 AM
Another nail in the coffin for ulster unionists.

Another reason for the kind of people who get their knickers in a twist over flegs to get the tribe out on election day.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:54:40 AM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

Back to current affairs, I am actually not that comfortable with the Ashers decision. Obviously it was found to be discrimination because it falls under on of the legal definitions of discrimination, thus refusing to print a Fine Gael poster is not relevant. However freedom, of expression, religious, sexual or whatever, must also allow for the freedom to say no to something, otherwise it is not freedom of anything.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 11:55:50 AM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

Why would there need to be a referendum?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 19, 2015, 11:56:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-yJqAMm2c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-yJqAMm2c)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 12:03:04 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

Why would there need to be a referendum?

So that they can include man-sheep, woman-dog and straw-man marriages.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: DuffleKing on May 19, 2015, 12:04:53 PM

I'm sure there are substantial legal costs on both sides here also?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

It's on Friday, you won't have long to wait.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:07:03 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

Why would there need to be a referendum?

So that they can include man-sheep, woman-dog and straw-man marriages.

Eh?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 12:11:19 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.
Yeah, they'll be forced to marry gays just like they're forced to marry divorcees, or forced to let Protestant, Muslim or Jewish kids make their first communion.

They aren't a business offering a service.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 12:12:12 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

It's on Friday, you won't have long to wait.

No it isn't.

The Irish Courts consistently allow clubs, societies and associations to be run according to their articles, rules etc. As long a they abide by their own rules they are entitled to decide how they conduct themselves and the courts will not interfere. See Portmarnock and females members for example. The GAA is another example.

Please stop the straw man nonsense.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on May 19, 2015, 12:18:05 PM
If my fictional poster man refused to print a poster by a muslim, because he disagreed with the message on the poster, would that be illegal?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:22:07 PM
The Irish Courts consistently allow clubs, societies and associations to be run according to their articles, rules etc. As long a they abide by their own rules they are entitled to decide how they conduct themselves and the courts will not interfere. See Portmarnock and females members for example. The GAA is another example.

Please stop the straw man nonsense.

If Portmarnock offered to stage civil weddings using their facilities, do you think they would be allowed refuse gay weddings? Any legislation that did so wouldn't survive a challenge. The same will apply to churches.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:23:41 PM
If my fictional poster man refused to print a poster by a muslim, because he disagreed with the message on the poster, would that be illegal?

It looks like it. The law of unintended consequences - literally.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 12:27:36 PM
The Irish Courts consistently allow clubs, societies and associations to be run according to their articles, rules etc. As long a they abide by their own rules they are entitled to decide how they conduct themselves and the courts will not interfere. See Portmarnock and females members for example. The GAA is another example.

Please stop the straw man nonsense.

If Portmarnock offered to stage civil weddings using their facilities, do you think they would be allowed refuse gay weddings? Any legislation that did so wouldn't survive a challenge. The same will apply to churches.

No it won't.

Religions are also protected under discrimination law. You need to pick an example that isn't covered by the discrimination legislation.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 19, 2015, 12:31:41 PM
The Irish Courts consistently allow clubs, societies and associations to be run according to their articles, rules etc. As long a they abide by their own rules they are entitled to decide how they conduct themselves and the courts will not interfere. See Portmarnock and females members for example. The GAA is another example.

Please stop the straw man nonsense.

If Portmarnock offered to stage civil weddings using their facilities, do you think they would be allowed refuse gay weddings? Any legislation that did so wouldn't survive a challenge. The same will apply to churches.

I would imagine the fact that a church wedding is more than just a civil ceremony would be the difference there.

If a church were holding civil ceremonies without the religious part of the ceremony then they would likely be obliged to do all civil ceremonies including same-sex (although that probably currently holds for civil partnerships)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:35:52 PM
The Irish Courts consistently allow clubs, societies and associations to be run according to their articles, rules etc. As long a they abide by their own rules they are entitled to decide how they conduct themselves and the courts will not interfere. See Portmarnock and females members for example. The GAA is another example.

Please stop the straw man nonsense.

If Portmarnock offered to stage civil weddings using their facilities, do you think they would be allowed refuse gay weddings? Any legislation that did so wouldn't survive a challenge. The same will apply to churches.

No it won't.

Religions are also protected under discrimination law. You need to pick an example that isn't covered by the discrimination legislation.

We've seen in the UK that invoking your religion does not protect you from the obligation to provide services without discrimination. I'd be very surprised if the legal framework in Ireland is sufficiently different to prevent such a scenario playing out here.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:37:04 PM
I would imagine the fact that a church wedding is more than just a civil ceremony would be the difference there.

If a church were holding civil ceremonies without the religious part of the ceremony then they would likely be obliged to do all civil ceremonies including same-sex (although that probably currently holds for civil partnerships)

That might be true. It will be interesting to see if that defence holds up.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 12:39:02 PM
Religious marriage has no legal standing, and is not a marriage as far as the state is concerned.

It's a religious sacrament in the same way first communion or the sacrament of the sick is a sacrament, ie with no legal standing.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 12:39:30 PM
I think it likely that churches will simply not be allowed do legal marriages at all and regular people will have trail to the registry office and pay extra.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on May 19, 2015, 12:46:13 PM
I know it's a different jurisdiction, but the principle in this verdict is why I think that assurances from the Irish government that religious solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriage (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530) are not worth very much.

I can't wait for that referendum.

Why would there need to be a referendum?

So that they can include man-sheep, woman-dog and straw-man marriages.

Eh?

Waterford men should have the right to marry sheep, ewe know?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 12:53:54 PM
Waterford men should have the right to marry sheep, ewe know?

We're already well past the point of being shocked by such things. After all, Tipp people are allowed reproduce.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: dferg on May 19, 2015, 01:00:28 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
I think it likely that churches will simply not be allowed do legal marriages at all and regular people will have trail to the registry office and pay extra.

Actually the Catholic Church in Ireland has threatened to withdraw facilitating civil ceremonies if the referendum is passed.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Billys Boots on May 19, 2015, 01:11:57 PM
I think it likely that churches will simply not be allowed do legal marriages at all and regular people will have trail to the registry office and pay extra.

Actually the Catholic Church in Ireland has threatened to withdraw facilitating civil ceremonies if the referendum is passed.

Well that would be a win-win then! 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 01:12:39 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.
Far from being anti-free speech, it's a clearly pro-free speech ruling.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
I think it likely that churches will simply not be allowed do legal marriages at all and regular people will have trail to the registry office and pay extra.

Actually the Catholic Church in Ireland has threatened to withdraw facilitating civil ceremonies if the referendum is passed.
Typical bully boy tactics from the No side.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 01:36:11 PM
I think it likely that churches will simply not be allowed do legal marriages at all and regular people will have trail to the registry office and pay extra.

Actually the Catholic Church in Ireland has threatened to withdraw facilitating civil ceremonies if the referendum is passed.

Well that would be a win-win then!

Great, we have finally reached a compromise, and with 48 hours to spare.

Yes vote in return for the Church pulling out of civil registrations it is then.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 01:40:36 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: dferg on May 19, 2015, 01:49:12 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 01:55:03 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.

Indeed racial or sectarian I guess.

Raging I'm in work apparently it's all kicking off on BBC's Talkback. Lynas has just said "We in the gay community".
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on May 19, 2015, 01:58:42 PM
I wonder just how many different types of people/lifestyles the bible goes against?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on May 19, 2015, 01:59:32 PM
Just read the judgement there. It covers everything raised in here about why Ashers defence of we would have refused the same cake to a heterosexual was rejected. Somewhat complex argument but I see how it's been arrived at. Judgement is available here if you have a spare 45 minutes.

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/%5B2015%5D%20NICty%202/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: The Iceman on May 19, 2015, 03:08:37 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 03:13:26 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

Let them eat cake adorned with messages designed to outrage for a few seconds until the next stunt..
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 03:18:20 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

If you provide a good or service to the public you cannot deny your service because the client is gay or want a gay message on their cake/poster.

Someone mentioned the Shankill butchers thing... that would be incitement to hatred so could be denied.

If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 03:21:14 PM
If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!

Je Suis Fleg Cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 03:26:37 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

If you provide a good or service to the public you cannot deny your service because the client is gay or want a gay message on their cake/poster.

Someone mentioned the Shankill butchers thing... that would be incitement to hatred so could be denied.

If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!

There are all sorts of incredibly distasteful views that are not illegal or would not count as incitement to racial hatred out there. I believe this case will set a very dangerous precedent.

So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

Quote
[41]      The Defendants submit that they would have supplied the cake to the Plaintiff without the message ‘support gay marriage’ and would also have refused an order from a heterosexual customer whose order included the same graphics.
 
I do not consider that this is the correct comparator for the reason that it oversimplifies the enquiry. In Gill v Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities [2001] NIJB 289 Girvan LJ at p.7 para 1 said:-...

[42]      In applying the reasoning from the authorities cited, it is my view that, if a comparator is required, the correct comparator is a heterosexual person placing an order for a cake with the graphics either “Support Marriage” or “Support Heterosexual Marriage.”

I disagree with the judge here. The question was around:

Quote
The Issues
 
(i)        whether there has been any direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation;
 
(ii)       whether there has been any indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation;
 
(iii)      whether there has been any direct discrimination on grounds of political opinion or religious belief;
 
(iv)      whether there has been any indirect discrimination on grounds of political opinion or religious belief; and
 
(v)       If so, whether the relevant provisions of the 2006 Regulations or the 1998 Order should be read down so as to take account of the Defendants protected rights to manifest their religious belief in accordance with Article 9 ECHR or their freedom of non-expression under Article 10 ECHR.

For (i) and (ii) above, the variable is sexual orientation, not the message. The judge's suggested comparator changes both.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: The Iceman on May 19, 2015, 03:39:34 PM


So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

I honestly have no idea what your point is.


the same as yours - but in the form of a question because I wasn't sure. I didn't know if this "conscience clause" would have protected a lot of people or just religious businesses. Could the bakeries who refuse to write "gay marriage is wrong" now be prosecuted? It would seem so....
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on May 19, 2015, 03:40:04 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

If you provide a good or service to the public you cannot deny your service because the client is gay or want a gay message on their cake/poster.

Someone mentioned the Shankill butchers thing... that would be incitement to hatred so could be denied.

If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!

Nay boher mate, that'll be £500 of your fine giro pounds please...

No discrimation required, just an extortionate pricing structure.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 03:55:18 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?


If you provide a good or service to the public you cannot deny your service because the client is gay or want a gay message on their cake/poster.

Someone mentioned the Shankill butchers thing... that would be incitement to hatred so could be denied.

If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!

Nay boher mate, that'll be £500 of your fine giro pounds please...

No discrimation required, just an extortionate pricing structure.

Reminds me of this video . . . still funny!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gimiDBAK2wA
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 19, 2015, 04:14:02 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 19, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
So is this all-encompassing conscience or only for religious conscience?
Or are you still allowed to deny people if you don't agree with them?  There are lots of social experiments out there that show "a woman falling down in the street and we watch to see who picks her up then a homeless woman falls down and people walk over her"...type of thing so a lad in America called up gay-friendly bakeries here and asked them to bake a cake and decorate it with the words "gay marriage is wrong". Bit of a dick move but so are all these social experiments too... Needless to say all the bakeries refused to make the cake.
Where does this sit with the current ruling at Ashers going forward?

If you provide a good or service to the public you cannot deny your service because the client is gay or want a gay message on their cake/poster.

Someone mentioned the Shankill butchers thing... that would be incitement to hatred so could be denied.

If a loyalist band comes into your Catholic cake shop for a 25th Anniversary cake you'd better be willing to supply it with a big Union Jack on it or you will be discriminating!!

Nay boher mate, that'll be £500 of your fine giro pounds please...

No discrimation required, just an extortionate pricing structure.

If said loyalist band wanted to take you to court your pricing structure would land you with the exact same result that Ashers have just received.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 04:27:15 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: deiseach on May 19, 2015, 04:30:34 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 19, 2015, 04:35:31 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...

I suppose they can't force you to make it taste nice
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 04:36:10 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...

Great. I would make them with poppies that looked slightly/barely/kinda like shamrocks.

I am sure you could have all sorts of clever twists. It would be hard to take a case against a baker who provided what you asked for, especially if the interaction was anyway open to interpretation. A point blank refusal might be a problem, but re-interpreting the request mightn't.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 04:36:30 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...

Surely you are not required to endorse heroin?

That said, you'll soon e able to inject the cake itself
http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-figure-out-how-to-make-home-made-heroin-without-poppies
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 19, 2015, 04:38:00 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...

Can't beat the notion of unintended consequences.  This just opens up the oven door for a real fire to be stoked up (pun fully intended).  I actually agree with the decision in a singular basis but the precedent that it has created is one which will cause havoc and I believe the only way to deal with it will be through legislative means.  The unfortunate thing is though that hard cases make poor laws and this is a hard case with the merits of the case not being relevant to the disingenuous rationale behind the actions of the people buying the cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Bingo on May 19, 2015, 04:54:53 PM
I can see all manner of cakes with a poppy motif being ordered in Taig areas in the near future...

Shit in the cake. Everyone happy.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: foxcommander on May 19, 2015, 04:58:53 PM
Winner's Sauce

From the pages of Viz Comic, a "special ingredient" added by a restaurant/cafe/pub chef, solely of Y-chromosome, to a dish given to a famous and/or particularly disagreeable customer, namely a restaurant critic.

Takes its name from The Sunday Times restaurant critic and sometime film director, Michael Winner. A well-known trasher of both restaurants and chefs' reputations.

"See that Michael Winner over there? He's reckoned to have ingested more Winner's Sauce than Marc Almond"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 05:12:32 PM
My only issue with it is the fact that it was clearly pre-meditated by one of the Gay Activist Groups but then I suppose these types of things need to be done in order to advance the gay equality agenda.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on May 19, 2015, 05:41:26 PM

Reminds me of this video . . . still funny!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gimiDBAK2wA

Very good!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on May 19, 2015, 05:50:23 PM
My only issue with it is the fact that it was clearly pre-meditated by one of the Gay Activist Groups but then I suppose these types of things need to be done in order to advance the gay equality agenda.

Lots of changes in laws and society and equality issues in many countries have been brought about through the use of test cases. Nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 19, 2015, 06:07:44 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 06:18:24 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 19, 2015, 06:41:05 PM
Mrs Asher's a babe.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 06:51:39 PM
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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 07:25:18 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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: give her dixie on May 19, 2015, 07:42:28 PM
http://theulsterfry.com/local-news/peace-process-under-threat-as-gay-cake-violence-spreads/

The peace process is now under threat after the court ruling



Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 19, 2015, 08:52:48 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 09:12:31 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 09:19:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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. :(
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 19, 2015, 09:32:47 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!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on May 19, 2015, 10:03:40 PM
Mrs Asher's a babe.

lol. So was Ned Flanders' missus, and look what happened her!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Apparently so on May 19, 2015, 11:00:38 PM
While carry on hi

Personally, it think its a disgrace you need a licence for a trailer now. Ffs
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:06:38 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 19, 2015, 11:10:57 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 19, 2015, 11:11:26 PM
Quote


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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 19, 2015, 11:17:19 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.

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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:19:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Oraisteach on May 19, 2015, 11:19:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: TheOptimist on May 19, 2015, 11:24:03 PM
Let's not forget here either, religion is a choice or an opinion, sexuality is a fact!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 19, 2015, 11:32:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 19, 2015, 11:38:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 19, 2015, 11:42:37 PM
Quote
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!!!  ;)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 19, 2015, 11:49:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 20, 2015, 12:23:22 AM
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?


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: east down gael on May 20, 2015, 12:56:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 20, 2015, 01:14:33 AM
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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: The Subbie on May 20, 2015, 03:39:09 AM
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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 20, 2015, 08:05:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 20, 2015, 08:07:39 AM
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?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 20, 2015, 08:18:11 AM
There is some subtlety in the wording and they weren't purely found guilty on the basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. I saw this on twitter somewhere - will try and dig it out.

I'm not sure I'm totally for the verdict either but it is amusing to see the reaction of the knuckle draggers like Fearon, DUPers, free Ps etc.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: LeoMc on May 20, 2015, 08:41:50 AM
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?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.
The answer is in the original quote.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 08:43:28 AM
There is some subtlety in the wording and they weren't purely found guilty on the basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. I saw this on twitter somewhere - will try and dig it out.

I'm not sure I'm totally for the verdict either but it is amusing to see the reaction of the knuckle draggers like Fearon, DUPers, free Ps etc.

I agree.. to an extent. I can't see how (I'm not a legal professional) the ruling is correct but if it is, I think the law needs looked at. Unfortunately, the DUP will be the ones looking to do it with their conscience clause or otherwise.

However, there is definitely enjoyment in seeing people like Jim Allister, a barrister, fly off the handle and rant and rave about religious freedom without even pretending to analyse it from a legal perspective.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 08:45:05 AM
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?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.
The answer is in the original quote.

But I do support gay marriage...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: MoChara on May 20, 2015, 09:04:28 AM
So my understanding now is the ruling was based on discrimination towards people of a political or social view rather than discrimination towards people of a sexual orientation.

I'm still unsure of my feelings about this ruling should people be forced to do things against their will, regardless of our opinion on the reasons. Then again giving the right to refuse can go too extreme as well. One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 20, 2015, 09:36:21 AM
It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 20, 2015, 09:39:42 AM
So my understanding now is the ruling was based on discrimination towards people of a political or social view rather than discrimination towards people of a sexual orientation.

I'm still unsure of my feelings about this ruling should people be forced to do things against their will, regardless of our opinion on the reasons. Then again giving the right to refuse can go too extreme as well. One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

I think the point made yesterday was that an individual does not have to do something against their will but a business cannot discriminate. If they did not want to ice the cake they should have got someone who was comfortable to do it and if they didn't want their name associated with it give the customer a blank box without the Ashers name on it!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 09:43:41 AM
It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.

Again, I understand the political opinion piece (although as I understand it this is much more murky territory and is not specifically protected under equality legislation?) and can see how, in my theoretical case, they might have accordingly discriminated against me. However, all those events that followed would still be true in my instance - I associate with gay people, I support gay marriage rights etc. I still fail to see how they could be guilty of discriminating against me on the basis of sexual orientation if I'm not gay.

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 20, 2015, 09:57:54 AM
It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.

Again, I understand the political opinion piece (although as I understand it this is much more murky territory and is not specifically protected under equality legislation?) and can see how, in my theoretical case, they might have accordingly discriminated against me. However, all those events that followed would still be true in my instance - I associate with gay people, I support gay marriage rights etc. I still fail to see how they could be guilty of discriminating against me on the basis of sexual orientation if I'm not gay.

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I thought the 'Campaign' style video of the McArthur's in their house playing with their kids very American and OTT!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 10:02:48 AM
It was but I don't think that makes them bellends.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 20, 2015, 10:18:45 AM
Mrs Asher's a babe.

Ashers is the name of the company, the directors name is McArthur.  Having said that I agree with the message in your post!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: MoChara on May 20, 2015, 10:28:11 AM

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I find it hard to call anyone that is being discriminatory towards a sect of people due to something that's none of their business as dignified. Hence Bellends.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 10:40:55 AM

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I find it hard to call anyone that is being discriminatory towards a sect of people due to something that's none of their business as dignified. Hence Bellends.

But you've already said you're unsure of how you feel about the ruling, but it's now the reason they're bellend? Bizarre. Would they still be bellends if they'd been found not to have discriminated?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: MoChara on May 20, 2015, 10:49:01 AM
My feelings on the ruling aren't to do with the McArthurs its to do with the wider implications of it. I don't have to agree with someone to feel they should have a right to do it.

Indeed the fact they are bellends has nothing to do with the verdict.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 20, 2015, 11:38:27 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:42:19 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on May 20, 2015, 12:05:49 PM
Anyway, they have said they are innocent in 'Gods' eyes. So matter closed.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 20, 2015, 12:08:15 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!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on May 20, 2015, 12:22:34 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 20, 2015, 12:31:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 20, 2015, 12:33:28 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on May 20, 2015, 01:09:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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??
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on May 20, 2015, 01:14:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 20, 2015, 01:45:26 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:


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 20, 2015, 03:56:40 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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 20, 2015, 04:44:49 PM
There may not be similarities here but,

a few years ago a man was asked to leave a well known restaurant as he has visible tattoos on his face. This is a policy by the restaurant however could it be seen as discriminating against how someone looks/who they are?

Did the equality commission bring this case forward?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:47:19 PM
Was he homosexual?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 20, 2015, 04:47:58 PM
I was told to get off an London Red Bus a number of years ago because the ticket collector deemed me a fire hazard. God Bless the Londoners, they stood up for me and my right to stand on the bus. The ticket collector backed down.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 20, 2015, 04:49:52 PM
Was he homosexual?

no
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:52:25 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 20, 2015, 05:09:47 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 20, 2015, 05:16:16 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok

Discrimination is legally defined in (probably) every jurisdiction, thus there are small differences from state to state. But the usual list includes religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, traveller (in the 26 anyway) and a few more I can't think of. Having a tattoo isn't one of them so it would be highly unlikely to succeed in a discrimination case.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 05:23:07 PM
I was told to get off an London Red Bus a number of years ago because the ticket collector deemed me a fire hazard. God Bless the Londoners, they stood up for me and my right to stand on the bus. The ticket collector backed down.

You've been called worse  ;)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 20, 2015, 05:24:19 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok

Discrimination is legally defined in (probably) every jurisdiction, thus there are small differences from state to state. But the usual list includes religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, traveller (in the 26 anyway) and a few more I can't think of. Having a tattoo isn't one of them so it would be highly unlikely to succeed in a discrimination case.

Just thinking aloud......should there be some adverse outcome for the victim apart from hurt feelings in order for it to be considered discrimination. 

What about a restaurant that requires gentlemen to wear a suit jacket......would that be considered discriminatory against those who either dont own or cant afford a suit jacket.....
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 05:26:09 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok

Discrimination is legally defined in (probably) every jurisdiction, thus there are small differences from state to state. But the usual list includes religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, traveller (in the 26 anyway) and a few more I can't think of. Having a tattoo isn't one of them so it would be highly unlikely to succeed in a discrimination case.

Just thinking aloud......should there be some adverse outcome for the victim apart from hurt feelings in order for it to be considered discrimination. 

What about a restaurant that requires gentlemen to wear a suit jacket......would that be considered discriminatory against those who either dont own or cant afford a suit jacket.....

What about bouncers who won't let you in to the nightclub because they don't like the look of you?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 20, 2015, 05:29:59 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok

Discrimination is legally defined in (probably) every jurisdiction, thus there are small differences from state to state. But the usual list includes religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, traveller (in the 26 anyway) and a few more I can't think of. Having a tattoo isn't one of them so it would be highly unlikely to succeed in a discrimination case.

That's fine muppet, but what is up with the picture you put up? I don't get it
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 20, 2015, 05:33:10 PM
Was he homosexual?

no

Wouldn't have thought he was discriminated against then.

ok

Discrimination is legally defined in (probably) every jurisdiction, thus there are small differences from state to state. But the usual list includes religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, traveller (in the 26 anyway) and a few more I can't think of. Having a tattoo isn't one of them so it would be highly unlikely to succeed in a discrimination case.

Just thinking aloud......should there be some adverse outcome for the victim apart from hurt feelings in order for it to be considered discrimination. 

What about a restaurant that requires gentlemen to wear a suit jacket......would that be considered discriminatory against those who either dont own or cant afford a suit jacket.....

What about bouncers who won't let you in to the nightclub because they don't like the look of you?

Cousin of mine from Liverpool told "no fvcking Scousers" at a pub in Temple Bar....hmmmm
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 08:50:47 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 20, 2015, 08:52:22 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

There are a number of posters here that you could explain this to a million times, but it won't change anything in their tiny minds.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:16:25 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 20, 2015, 09:24:10 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
They offered a service and refused to provide it. They're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:27:21 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
They offered a service and refused to provide it. They're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law.

So if an extremist wanted a cake with a message we love you jihadi john and a image of someone being beheaded - they would have to provide that?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 09:29:24 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
Well he says he didn't know their beliefs, which doesn't seem too far fetched. If he had known their beliefs, would he have been happy to give them his regular custom? It's a city centre bakery - do you know the beliefs of the owners of all (or any) of the businesses on Royal Avenue?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 09:30:16 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
They offered a service and refused to provide it. They're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law.

So if an extremist wanted a cake with a message we love you jihadi john and a image of someone being beheaded - they would have to provide that?
No, because that would fall under incitement to hatred.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:31:36 PM
So Sidney is incorrect saying they're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:32:21 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
Well he says he didn't know their beliefs, which doesn't seem too far fetched. If he had known their beliefs, would he have been happy to give them his regular custom? It's a city centre bakery - do you know the beliefs of the owners of all (or any) of the businesses on Royal Avenue?

I live nowhere near it - but would know those of people in my hometown.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on May 20, 2015, 09:34:03 PM
Might go into the printing shop in Andytown and get a load of God Save The Queen t-shirts made up.
They'll not refuse now.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
They offered a service and refused to provide it. They're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law.

So if an extremist wanted a cake with a message we love you jihadi john and a image of someone being beheaded - they would have to provide that?
No, because that would fall under incitement to hatred.

What about islam, the only true religion?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 09:36:18 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
Well he says he didn't know their beliefs, which doesn't seem too far fetched. If he had known their beliefs, would he have been happy to give them his regular custom? It's a city centre bakery - do you know the beliefs of the owners of all (or any) of the businesses on Royal Avenue?

I live nowhere near it - but would know those of people in my hometown.
This is a city centre, not a small town. Big difference. I've lived in and around Belfast for over 15 years and would be in the city centre regularly. I'd have no idea of the owners of any of the businesses, much less their religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:36:32 PM
Might go into the printing shop in Andytown and get a load of God Save The Queen t-shirts made up.
They'll not refuse now.

I don't know mentioning the Queen could get the equality commission involved again!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 09:36:46 PM
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.
It was accepted by the defence - indeed it was part of their defence - that this man had been a regular customer at Ashers. So he didn't go out of his way at all - it appears he went to his regular bakery.

He therefore knew their beliefs and choose to use his position as a gay rights activists to try and humiliate them.
They offered a service and refused to provide it. They're a limited liability company with no right to discriminate against a customer based on religious, political or sexual orientation grounds and clearly breached the law.

So if an extremist wanted a cake with a message we love you jihadi john and a image of someone being beheaded - they would have to provide that?
No, because that would fall under incitement to hatred.

What about islam, the only true religion?
What about it?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:38:04 PM
Would they have to make that cake?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 20, 2015, 09:54:26 PM
I was down south (US) after 9/11 and there was a shop selling bumper stickers stating-"A tea towel is not a hat".  Wonder if a Muslim owned printing shop or bakery could be forced to make some up for me
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 09:57:18 PM
South being the Southern USA I assume, not Cork or Kerry? 😃
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 10:00:04 PM
South being the Southern USA I assume, not Cork or Kerry? 😃

So you are clearly stating geographical location is a factor?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 10:03:48 PM
South being the Southern USA I assume, not Cork or Kerry? 😃

So you are clearly stating geographical location is a factor?

What are you on about? I'm talking about whiteys tea towel story.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 10:08:31 PM
So in Crossmaglen a man walks into a cake shop and asks for a cake with a sash and a god save ulster slogan, are they legally obliged to deliver or face the wrath of the equality commission?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 10:11:27 PM
Are you asking me that? I've already said I'm not sure about this ruling because of potential issues like that. I'm not arguing against you 😃
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 20, 2015, 10:13:41 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:14:29 PM
So in Crossmaglen a man walks into a cake shop and asks for a cake with a sash and a god save ulster slogan, are they legally obliged to deliver or face the wrath of the equality commission?
Yes, on my understanding of this judgement, unless they have an explicit policy about not making cakes with political/religious slogans.

But if I was them, i'd take the order.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on May 20, 2015, 10:16:51 PM
So in Crossmaglen a man walks into a cake shop and asks for a cake with a sash and a god save ulster slogan, are they legally obliged to deliver or face the wrath of the equality commission?
Yes, on my understanding of this judgement, unless they have an explicit policy about not making cakes with political/religious slogans.

But if I was them, i'd take the order.

Take the order and ask them at what time they were coming back to collect it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:17:04 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 10:19:31 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.

The orange order doesn't obey the law but that is ok?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:20:26 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.

The orange order doesn't obey the law but that is ok?
What are you talking about? What relevance does that have?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 20, 2015, 10:38:37 PM
Nolan Show on just now! Ashers will figure prominently!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 11:03:32 PM
Nolan Show on just now! Ashers will figure prominently!

All a bit tame. Needs more vitriol, pedantry and shouting by ugly people.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 20, 2015, 11:04:02 PM
Very difficult situation for Stephen Nolan here.

To go a whole hour talking about cakes without eating anything will be the most difficult programme he's faced yet.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 11:12:36 PM
Very difficult situation for Stephen Nolan here.

To go a whole hour talking about cakes without eating anything will be the most difficult programme he's faced yet.

Was he not supposed to be on some weight loss regime? I haven't watched him in years and he looks bigger than ever.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Sidney on May 20, 2015, 11:17:42 PM
Yes, you're a homophobe, Peter.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 20, 2015, 11:29:40 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.

Ways and means. Ashers too honest for their own good but it is obvious they were deliberately targeted in this case. I assume they will appeal?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 20, 2015, 11:31:23 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.

Ways and means. Ashers too honest for their own good but it is obvious they were deliberately targeted in this case. I assume they will appeal?

How is it obvious? Did you know it was run by evangelical Christians? I certainly didn't. I'd never even heard of them to be honest.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:32:03 PM
Is Northern Ireland's strong equality and discrimination laws as a result of the history of the likes of H&W and Shorts?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:35:55 PM
This is nonsense. I own a business built with hard earned money on my own property. If I don't want to do business with somebody for what ever reason I should have the right to turn them away. My business....my choice.
Yeah, but there's this thing called 'the law'.

If you don't want to do business with someone because they have a bad credit history, for example, that's fine. If you don't want to do business with them on the basis of their religion, race, sexuality, gender etc. then you're discriminating.

Ways and means. Ashers too honest for their own good but it is obvious they were deliberately targeted in this case. I assume they will appeal?
How many times does it have to be repeated? The customer was a regular at Ashers. He went to his regular bakery to order a cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:37:58 PM
Is Northern Ireland's strong equality and discrimination laws as a result of the history of the likes of H&W and Shorts?
Are they stronger than in the Republic or GB? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 20, 2015, 11:40:18 PM
If they need funding to help with an appeal I would gladly donate and I know several business owners that would feel the same. This story has a bit to run yet I think.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:48:28 PM
It might well do. I was surprised at the judgement, having thought the distinction between refusing the person and the order would be sufficient to clear Ashers. The judge obviously thought differently and I haven't read the full judgement to understand the legal nuances.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 20, 2015, 11:49:35 PM
I was told to get off an London Red Bus a number of years ago because the ticket collector deemed me a fire hazard. God Bless the Londoners, they stood up for me and my right to stand on the bus. The ticket collector backed down.

You've been called worse  ;)

A lot worse....  ;D
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 21, 2015, 12:27:49 AM
As I said before it is rare if not unique for an Equality Commission supported case to be defeated.Makes you wonder if the judges,legals etc all work hand in glove to keep the gravy train flowing.

Bet Jerome Quinn wishes he'd had the backing of the Equality Commission
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 21, 2015, 12:36:46 AM
As I said before it is rare if not unique for an Equality Commission supported case to be defeated.Makes you wonder if the judges,legals etc all work hand in glove to keep the gravy train flowing.

Bet Jerome Quinn wishes he'd had the backing of the Equality Commission

When did you start working for Jim Allister?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 21, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
In a Twitter war of words over The Ashers debacle Jamie Bryson has claimed he knows what he's talking about due to the fact he has a law degree.    His claim has pricked up quite a few ears And he's been challenged to give further details of where he qualified from and when but wee Jamie has gone stwangely qwiet.....

Never knew you needed a law degree to answer the phones in a taxi office!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Oraisteach on May 21, 2015, 04:18:21 AM
Just curious.  Do the Ashers want Jamie Bryson on their side?  And Bryson is the voice of what constituency?  Flag-waving Loyalists? 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 21, 2015, 07:18:13 AM
As I said before it is rare if not unique for an Equality Commission supported case to be defeated.Makes you wonder if the judges,legals etc all work hand in glove to keep the gravy train flowing.

Bet Jerome Quinn wishes he'd had the backing of the Equality Commission
Or maybe they only support cases where they're convinced there's a genuine equality issue, thereby substantially increasing the success rate.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: MoChara on May 21, 2015, 07:56:41 AM
Do ya think it would have made any difference on the case if they had refused the cake at point of asking rather than taking a weekend to decide? I think there's a fair chance there wouldn't even be a case never mind a different outcome.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on May 21, 2015, 08:36:29 AM
Just curious.  Do the Ashers want Jamie Bryson on their side?  And Bryson is the voice of what constituency?  Flag-waving Loyalists?

I imagine they want nothing to do with him and his ilk.

Bryson is the voice of nobody. The fleg waving loyalist constituency barely exists any more. Release a bit of "community funding" and they shut up for a few years.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on May 21, 2015, 09:40:38 AM
So in Crossmaglen a man walks into a cake shop and asks for a cake with a sash and a god save ulster slogan, are they legally obliged to deliver or face the wrath of the equality commission?
Yes, on my understanding of this judgement, unless they have an explicit policy about not making cakes with political/religious slogans.

But if I was them, i'd take the order.

Take the order and ask them at what time they were coming back to collect it.

Discrimination laws would be the least of his worries!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 21, 2015, 10:28:37 AM
In a Twitter war of words over The Ashers debacle Jamie Bryson has claimed he knows what he's talking about due to the fact he has a law degree.    His claim has pricked up quite a few ears And he's been challenged to give further details of where he qualified from and when but wee Jamie has gone stwangely qwiet.....

Never knew you needed a law degree to answer the phones in a taxi office!!

https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367518333453124/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367518333453124/?type=1&theater)

Which has led to this  ;D

https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367672533437704/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367672533437704/?type=1&theater)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 21, 2015, 10:47:55 AM
In a Twitter war of words over The Ashers debacle Jamie Bryson has claimed he knows what he's talking about due to the fact he has a law degree.    His claim has pricked up quite a few ears And he's been challenged to give further details of where he qualified from and when but wee Jamie has gone stwangely qwiet.....

Never knew you needed a law degree to answer the phones in a taxi office!!

https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367518333453124/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367518333453124/?type=1&theater)

Which has led to this  ;D

https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367672533437704/?type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/photos/a.167845846753708.1073741828.167750270096599/367672533437704/?type=1&theater)

Some good comments there...I think "Atticunt Finch" is my favourite though!! ;D
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 11:54:24 AM
Is Northern Ireland's strong equality and discrimination laws as a result of the history of the likes of H&W and Shorts?
Are they stronger than in the Republic or GB? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong.

I think the employment laws are stronger, but I have only limited experience of them. There appears to be more rules and regulations than in the south, regarding religion/seniority etc.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 21, 2015, 11:59:31 AM
I'd love to see what Bwyson's case is against LAD. . . he clearly told the Tele he's going back to finish his Law degree so they're perfectly entitled to point out the error in his argument.

It's strange though how batshit crazy him and Frazer are yet we're on here talking about them regularly. I just hope they have no actual sway in the PUL Community!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 21, 2015, 12:16:24 PM
Is Northern Ireland's strong equality and discrimination laws as a result of the history of the likes of H&W and Shorts?
Are they stronger than in the Republic or GB? I didn't think so, but I may be wrong.

I think the employment laws are stronger, but I have only limited experience of them. There appears to be more rules and regulations than in the south, regarding religion/seniority etc.

Employment laws are definitely stronger here but it's mostly in religious terms.  As a company we are committed (by law) to have completed an "Equal Opportunities Monitoring Assessment" for everyone who applies for a job.  In this form the applicants are required to divulge their sex, race etc and tick whether they belong to the Roman Catholic community, the Protestant community or neither.  Ironically, there is no mention of sexuality.  When interviewing candidates we don't see these forms but are required to keep them on file.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 12:18:09 PM
I would have originally been sceptical of the decision on the basis of business owners having a certain right to choose who they do business with (such as someone’s earlier example of the t-shirt company refusing to make God Save the Queen tops or something) but when you consider it in the context of what the opposite ruling could have opened the door to (and the obvious history in NI of business owners being allowed to decide who they do business with / employ), it’s probably the correct decision.

I get how he was discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs and that there would have been no such ruling if the bakery had a blanket ban on any political messages on their cakes. But I don’t understand how they ruled that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation??
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on May 21, 2015, 12:20:17 PM
I would have originally been sceptical of the decision on the basis of business owners having a certain right to choose who they do business with (such as someone’s earlier example of the t-shirt company refusing to make God Save the Queen tops or something) but when you consider it in the context of what the opposite ruling could have opened the door to (and the obvious history in NI of business owners being allowed to decide who they do business with / employ), it’s probably the correct decision.

I get how he was discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs and that there would have been no such ruling if the bakery had a blanket ban on any political messages on their cakes. But I don’t understand how they ruled that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation??

I'm the same.  Also, had Ashers said in their defence that they in fact do have a blanket ban on all political messages would this have worked?  Or would they have been required to display this beforehand?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 21, 2015, 12:28:22 PM
I would have originally been sceptical of the decision on the basis of business owners having a certain right to choose who they do business with (such as someone’s earlier example of the t-shirt company refusing to make God Save the Queen tops or something) but when you consider it in the context of what the opposite ruling could have opened the door to (and the obvious history in NI of business owners being allowed to decide who they do business with / employ), it’s probably the correct decision.

I get how he was discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs and that there would have been no such ruling if the bakery had a blanket ban on any political messages on their cakes. But I don’t understand how they ruled that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation??

In the judgment the Judge reckoned that having had conversations over the weekend the McArthurs had come to the conclusion that the man was gay.

Quote
It is significant that the 2nd named Defendant would have been prepared to fulfil the order but, after discussing the issue with the 3rd Defendant and, ’wrestling with his heart and mind’, he changed his view. During those discussions it must also have been abundantly clear that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and that in all the circumstances the 2nd Defendant must either consciously or unconsciously have had the knowledge or perception that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 12:29:11 PM
I would have originally been sceptical of the decision on the basis of business owners having a certain right to choose who they do business with (such as someone’s earlier example of the t-shirt company refusing to make God Save the Queen tops or something) but when you consider it in the context of what the opposite ruling could have opened the door to (and the obvious history in NI of business owners being allowed to decide who they do business with / employ), it’s probably the correct decision.

I get how he was discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs and that there would have been no such ruling if the bakery had a blanket ban on any political messages on their cakes. But I don’t understand how they ruled that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation??

I'm the same.  Also, had Ashers said in their defence that they in fact do have a blanket ban on all political messages would this have worked?  Or would they have been required to display this beforehand?

Would this be called the blanket defence?


I'll get my coat..........
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 12:40:34 PM
I would have originally been sceptical of the decision on the basis of business owners having a certain right to choose who they do business with (such as someone’s earlier example of the t-shirt company refusing to make God Save the Queen tops or something) but when you consider it in the context of what the opposite ruling could have opened the door to (and the obvious history in NI of business owners being allowed to decide who they do business with / employ), it’s probably the correct decision.

I get how he was discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs and that there would have been no such ruling if the bakery had a blanket ban on any political messages on their cakes. But I don’t understand how they ruled that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation??

In the judgment the Judge reckoned that having had conversations over the weekend the McArthurs had come to the conclusion that the man was gay.

Quote
It is significant that the 2nd named Defendant would have been prepared to fulfil the order but, after discussing the issue with the 3rd Defendant and, ’wrestling with his heart and mind’, he changed his view. During those discussions it must also have been abundantly clear that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and that in all the circumstances the 2nd Defendant must either consciously or unconsciously have had the knowledge or perception that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay.

That's tenuous enough IMO. Sure it's obvious he had the knowledge that this guy was gay but if he was just looking for a non-political cake I doubt it would have been a problem.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 21, 2015, 01:02:27 PM
Gareth Lee has said he will donate the money to charity, which is a nice gesture.

Be honest, how many people on here could say they would do that after a case?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:18:06 PM
If it was £500 and all over the media?

All of us I'd say
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on May 21, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 01:55:13 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)

They'll find it hard to earn a crust.

(..quickly following JC out the door...)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on May 21, 2015, 03:47:20 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)

They'll find it hard to earn a crust.

(..quickly following JC out the door...)


Very good, that is the icing on the cake!!

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Keyser soze on May 21, 2015, 03:56:22 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)

They'll find it hard to earn a crust.

(..quickly following JC out the door...)


Very good, that is the icing on the cake!!



 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Did the judge find that they refused service without good raisin?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on May 21, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)

They'll find it hard to earn a crust.

(..quickly following JC out the door...)


Very good, that is the icing on the cake!!



 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Did the judge find that they refused service without good  self raising?

Fixed that for you.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 04:16:33 PM
Ashers have 6 months to raise the dough. (Coat already on..)

They'll find it hard to earn a crust.

(..quickly following JC out the door...)


Very good, that is the icing on the cake!!



 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Did the judge find that they refused service without good  self raising?

Fixed that for you.

Some seriously half-baked puns here.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Harold Disgracey on May 21, 2015, 04:24:06 PM
There's no knead for those puns.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 21, 2015, 04:45:23 PM
At yeast try to make them funny!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on May 21, 2015, 06:14:17 PM
They are brutal lads. Just no sugar coating it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 21, 2015, 06:49:24 PM
Some of these are good.  I sing your praises.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 21, 2015, 06:54:07 PM
Yeast-us Christ, quit with the buns.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 06:55:03 PM
Some of these are good.  I sing your praises.

That's a bad eggsample of a pun, you should leaven unless you are trying to stir it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 21, 2015, 07:00:00 PM
Some of these are good.  I sing your praises.

That's a bad eggsample of a pun, you should leaven unless you are trying to stir it.

I had another good one but sadly scone.  I don't want to insultana anyone's intelligence.  Cherry-o.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 21, 2015, 07:22:03 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: rrhf on May 21, 2015, 07:23:45 PM
After tomorrow there will be plenty cake for all in the the free state...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 21, 2015, 09:37:34 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

My answer to that is boycott Tesco.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 21, 2015, 10:42:05 PM
If it was £500 and all over the media?

All of us I'd say

If it wasn't all over the media?

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 21, 2015, 10:43:46 PM
If it was £500 and all over the media?

All of us I'd say

If it wasn't all over the media?
But it was.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ziggysego on May 21, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

My answer to that is boycott Tesco.

Eh?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 21, 2015, 10:51:25 PM
If it was £500 and all over the media?

All of us I'd say

If it wasn't all over the media?

Why do you ask questions like this?

'What if he wasn't an activist?'

What if you didn't read this post?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 22, 2015, 12:01:38 AM
Bought a four pack of fruit scones made by Ashers in Tesco today,as I do frequently.

The gay supremacists are now on a par with fleg protestors and Orange Order for vindictiveness and belligerence >:(
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: eddie d on May 22, 2015, 12:21:40 AM
If it was £500 and all over the media?

All of us I'd say

If it wasn't all over the media?

Why do you ask questions like this?

'What if he wasn't an activist?'

I asked this because if he had a been someone else from the gay community, who were refused, they might have said "f**k you" and left the shop. The fact that he is an activist, the attention gained from this case is helpful. I am not against gay marriage etc. but I still don't agree with the verdict, as it appears to have opened up can of worms for businesses, as there may well be some people putting this verdict to the test on certain businesses. Likewise if it was the other way about ( i.e. gay business owner asked to ice a cake with "heterosexual marriage only" on it) I would still disagree with the verdict. Yes a business has responsibility not to enforce their views on the customer but I believe a customer also has some responsibility and respect the views of the business. It's probably why we have never heard of a customer going into a shop on the Falls Road asking for a t-shirt with a Union Jack on it etc.       


What if you didn't read this post?

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:28:10 AM
Bought a four pack of fruit scones made by Ashers in Tesco today,as I do frequently.

The gay supremacists are now on a par with fleg protestors and Orange Order for vindictiveness and belligerence >:(

Did they make you go for the fruity ones?  ;D

Damn those gay supremacists are good!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 22, 2015, 06:39:57 AM
Yes the irony of it all!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on May 22, 2015, 09:02:23 AM
Bought a four pack of fruit scones made by Ashers in Tesco today,as I do frequently.

The gay supremacists are now on a par with fleg protestors and Orange Order for vindictiveness and belligerence >:(

That'll show them gays and gay sympathisers ;D
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:48:57 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

Support what a gay right activist trying to humiliate a family in public because he went out of his way to be offended.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on May 22, 2015, 07:52:37 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

Support what a gay right activist trying to humiliate a family in public because he went out of his way to be offended.

Jebus, the gay right!

Did you see that on Foxy News?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:55:30 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

Support what a gay right activist trying to humiliate a family in public because he went out of his way to be offended.

Jebus, the gay right!

Did you see that on Foxy News?

You are as funny as some of the other posters here making jokes at gays expense.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maguire01 on May 22, 2015, 08:13:19 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

Support what a gay right activist trying to humiliate a family in public because he went out of his way to be offended.
For the 100th time, the guy didn't go out of his way to be offended - he went to his regular bakery.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: thebigfella on May 22, 2015, 09:45:23 PM
I see there is a petition now to get Tesco's to ban Asher's Bakery products in their store. I fully supported the Gareth Lee and his case against the bakery over the "gay cake", but I think this is a load of nonsense is rubbing it in the McArthurs' faces. No call for it and to be honest, isn't this exactly what was happening to them in the first place?

Support what a gay right activist trying to humiliate a family in public because he went out of his way to be offended.
For the 100th time, the guy didn't go out of his way to be offended - he went to his regular bakery.

Did somebody not say they didn't bake the cakes but only decorated them? If so I'd be massively offended at them calling themselves a bakery.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GJL on May 28, 2015, 11:25:32 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 28, 2015, 11:31:07 AM
Their defence is the good book told them not to do it. The Lord be with them.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 28, 2015, 11:56:51 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283)

Prayerful consideration!! I'm starting to think this is all about advertising/publicity and getting the 'Brand' Ashers out there... would like to know whether their profits have increased over this period


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on May 28, 2015, 12:21:04 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283)

Prayerful consideration!! I'm starting to think this is all about advertising/publicity and getting the 'Brand' Ashers out there... would like to know whether their profits have increased over this period

Analysis of their turnover / profits compared to media coverage over the past few months would make an interesting case study alright!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Hardy on May 28, 2015, 02:23:30 PM
Asher ye know yerself.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Pub Bore on May 28, 2015, 04:17:08 PM
They haven't a prayer.  Actually it's worse than that, they don't have a hope in hell.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: red hander on May 29, 2015, 04:45:46 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283)

Prayerful consideration!! I'm starting to think this is all about advertising/publicity and getting the 'Brand' Ashers out there... would like to know whether their profits have increased over this period

Indeed, but on a positive note, there'll be lots more pictures of the dutiful (and beautiful) wife splashed all over the papers, which is all right by an atheist like me
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on May 29, 2015, 05:03:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283)

Prayerful consideration!! I'm starting to think this is all about advertising/publicity and getting the 'Brand' Ashers out there... would like to know whether their profits have increased over this period

Indeed, but on a positive note, there'll be lots more pictures of the dutiful (and beautiful) wife splashed all over the papers, which is all right by an atheist like me

I'm all for christians and the like but by f**k in this place they like to ram it down your throat.... Christianity that is... Which works against them.... All that crap love thy neighbour crap!! Everyone is equal under god... Except gays/lesbians and the adulterous
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on June 06, 2015, 08:39:55 PM
Picard says no, make it so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL1qHYttFz8
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Hardy on May 05, 2016, 10:43:32 AM
SNL takes up the fight. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDAa1If-u4)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 05, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
SNL takes up the fight. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDAa1If-u4)

That's excellent!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on October 24, 2016, 01:43:09 PM
Tony will be disappointed
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PM
I feel sorry for Ashers and applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.Gay marriage is contrary to Christian teaching so how can Christians be reasonably expected to endorse it in any way shape or form?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 01:49:14 PM
I feel sorry for Ashers and applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.Gay marriage is contrary to Christian teaching so how can Christians be reasonably expected to endorse it in any way shape or form?

No gays have been stoned to death, nor any adulterers either, thus there must be no Christians who follow Scripture in the Western World.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2016, 01:53:51 PM
I feel sorry for Ashers and applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.Gay marriage is contrary to Christian teaching so how can Christians be reasonably expected to endorse it in any way shape or form?

No gays have been stoned to death, nor any adulterers either, thus there must be no Christians who follow Scripture in the Western World.
Muppet be careful there. You do havé a good few members getting stoned at the weekend .
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 01:59:54 PM
I feel sorry for Ashers and applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.Gay marriage is contrary to Christian teaching so how can Christians be reasonably expected to endorse it in any way shape or form?

No gays have been stoned to death, nor any adulterers either, thus there must be no Christians who follow Scripture in the Western World.
Muppet be careful there. You do havé a good few members getting stoned at the weekend .

True.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on October 24, 2016, 02:02:40 PM
I feel sorry for Ashers and applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.Gay marriage is contrary to Christian teaching so how can Christians be reasonably expected to endorse it in any way shape or form?

It's not an endorsement... A business (Businesses cannot be CHristian btw) were asked to carry out a business function and failed to do so on the grounds of discrimination! QED
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2016, 02:18:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: pearseog on October 24, 2016, 02:34:27 PM
Always thought this was an interesting case. Feel some degree of sympathy with them in that I'm sure they would have provided a cake with no slogan. It was the message they had the issue with.

It wouldn't be custom I'd turn down but I can see where they are coming from.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: nrico2006 on October 24, 2016, 02:38:05 PM
Does a business have a right to refuse to provide their services? 

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

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 02:47:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 24, 2016, 02:58:01 PM
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"?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 03:05:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: MoChara on October 24, 2016, 03:08:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on October 24, 2016, 03:24:06 PM
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!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Ethan Tremblay on October 24, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 04:07:44 PM
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 (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.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 24, 2016, 04:45:02 PM

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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 04:46:23 PM

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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on October 24, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
What was the slogan?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 04:52:03 PM
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’...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: AZOffaly on October 24, 2016, 04:52:58 PM
I can see it's political, or at least socially provocative, but how does it debase marriage?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 24, 2016, 05:05:46 PM

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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: general_lee on October 24, 2016, 05:42:44 PM
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
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2016, 05:56:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8

Everybody needs a bosom for a pillow,
Everybody needs a bosom

Except for gay customers, obviously
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2016, 08:04:20 PM
It's all about gay supremacy now.Ridiculous.No protection far less respect for those who hold religious views,in fact they are penalised at every turn
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Aaron Boone on October 24, 2016, 08:57:53 PM
It'll run for another while, Ashers have funding and congregation support to keep appealing. There's  no real winners, lawyers apart.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on October 24, 2016, 09:03:50 PM
So following this logic should a bakery owned by a Nationslist be legally obliged to bake a cake for an Orange Lodge celebration?



Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on October 24, 2016, 09:05:14 PM
Wouldn't agree that they discrimated against him on the grounds of his sexual orientation. If a heterosexual person had asked for the same cake, they would presumably also been refused?

Imo, the question really would come down to whether or not they would have refused to make a cake with a message "Oppose Gay Marriage" or not. If they wouldn't have, then they were discriminating
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: general_lee on October 24, 2016, 09:09:06 PM
It's all about gay supremacy now.Ridiculous.No protection far less respect for those who hold religious views,in fact they are penalised at every turn
Piss off you moron, so called Christians have ruled the roost in this pathetic excuse of a state since it's creation and their dopey beliefs form the foundations for the backwards laws in NI and you have the nerve to spout shite about gay supremacy.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2016, 09:52:14 PM
Gay supremacists just like Christian fundamentalists impose their will on all and sundry.It has gone beyond equality to supremacy and imposing their views on everyone
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 10:06:17 PM
Wouldn't agree that they discrimated against him on the grounds of his sexual orientation. If a heterosexual person had asked for the same cake, they would presumably also been refused?

Imo, the question really would come down to whether or not they would have refused to make a cake with a message "Oppose Gay Marriage" or not. If they wouldn't have, then they were discriminating

The whole thing was obviously set up by the gay man. But equally, Ashers could have refused to bake the cake on many other grounds that would have not bothered the Equality Laws. Both sides wanted the fight to be on the grounds of sexual orientation and in particular to have their respective views on the matter triump. There is only one winner there.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
If they had baked the cake and offered it for sale to him without the slogan surely that would have kept them on the right side of the law
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2016, 10:12:40 PM
If they had baked the cake and offered it for sale to him without the slogan surely that would have kept them on the right side of the law

As OmaghJoe said above, they could have said they were busy. They could have done what many tradesmen the world over do every day and 'forgot'. They could have got the message wring and 'accidentally' wrote something else.

It looks to me that Ashers wanted the fight, and still want it.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: thejuice on October 24, 2016, 10:43:28 PM
Obviously its a complicated issue and could set some difficult precedents but ultimately I think the cake shop owner ought to have their religious views respected even if I don't personally agree with them. Plenty of other religious views are accommodated by businesses across Europe despite the questionable moral ethics of some of their practices. In this instance this is the least incendiary case I can think of and yet look at the storm its creating, and this families livelihood could be in jeopardy over it.

I've spoken to some gay lads who've told me they find it all embarrassing. In their words "Its just a bloody cake, can't they just go somewhere else, there is plenty of other places". But then they weren't that keen on gay marriage or modern gay activism in general.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: foxcommander on October 24, 2016, 10:48:06 PM
They could have got the message wring and 'accidentally' wrote something else.

It's not like you to get a message wring
Back to the dictionary corner with you  :)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 24, 2016, 11:45:44 PM
Wouldn't agree that they discrimated against him on the grounds of his sexual orientation. If a heterosexual person had asked for the same cake, they would presumably also been refused?

Imo, the question really would come down to whether or not they would have refused to make a cake with a message "Oppose Gay Marriage" or not. If they wouldn't have, then they were discriminating

The whole thing was obviously set up by the gay man. But equally, Ashers could have refused to bake the cake on many other grounds that would have not bothered the Equality Laws. Both sides wanted the fight to be on the grounds of sexual orientation and in particular to have their respective views on the matter triump. There is only one winner there.

I think you just about nailed it Muppet....for a change ;P

Tho TBF I dont think that yer man did set it up intentionally, however when presented with the opportunity he gladly used it to wield his activism axe. And Ashers likewise obviously, you only have to look at the way they defended it as moral conscience instead of with the actual law, which they could have.

Its working a treat all around, somebody said no ones a winner...actually they are all winners
Ashers...publicity, publicity support for their stance = increased revenue
Lee....raised profile as an activist and his cause gets more publicity

Is Gay Supremacy the next Bourne film? as in the Bourne Gay Supremacy?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 25, 2016, 01:12:31 AM
Although the Judgement isn't available yet I have read the summary and DJ Brownlie's early judgement and they are both well balanced and make sense. They strike a balance between ensuring that people are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality whilst at the same time maintaining the rights of the faith community not to be forced into anything in a commercial sphere that conflicts with their rights.

In order to maintain their religious freedoms Ashers simply had to stop producing cakes that supported either heterosexual and gay marriage. It's clear the difficulty they had was the word gay in this case.  They didnt have to make cakes with messages about marriage on them at all, once they chose to they couldn't then discriminate against those whose orientation they disagreed with which is what happened here. Gay marriage being so inextricably linked to a persons sexual orientation that the refusal to provide the cake amounted to direct discrimination.

The solution was simple if you don't want to adourn cakes with a message that supports gay marriage then don't adourn cakes with any message about marriage whatsoever.

Holding that because a particular message offends your religious beliefs you had a get out of jail free card would make a mockery of anti discrimination legislation. As would forcing Ashers to actively support a gay rights event. The judgement is reasoned and balanced. It is not gay supremacy or any of the other nonsense discussed on here.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 25, 2016, 01:16:36 AM
Although the Judgement isn't available yet I have read the summary and DJ Brownlie's early judgement and they are both well balanced and make sense. They strike a balance between ensuring that people are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality whilst at the same time maintaining the rights of the faith community not to be forced into anything in a commercial sphere that conflicts with their rights.

In order to maintain their religious freedoms Ashers simply had to stop producing cakes that supported either heterosexual and gay marriage. It's clear the difficulty they had was the word gay in this case.  They didnt have to make cakes with messages about marriage on them at all, once they chose to they couldn't then discriminate against those whose orientation they disagreed with which is what happened here. Gay marriage being so inextricably linked to a persons sexual orientation that the refusal to provide the cake amounted to direct discrimination.

The solution was simple if you don't want to adourn cakes with a message that supports gay marriage then don't adourn cakes with any message about marriage whatsoever.

Holding that because a particular message offends your religious beliefs you had a get out of jail free card would make a mockery of anti discrimination legislation. As would forcing Ashers to actively support a gay rights event. The judgement is reasoned and balanced. It is not gay supremacy or any of the other nonsense discussed on here.

Very well explained. Thanks for that.

I particularly enjoyed the last line.  ;D
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 08:11:06 AM
I know in the US evangelical protestants are more resistant to accepting the gay agenda than other people.  Nordie Prods are related to the evangelical's since  a lot of evangelicals have Ulster roots. The GOP spent years flogging guns god and gays to people. The born again protestants take a literal view of the Bible. And there were no RTE Guide interviews with gay TV personalities in the Bible.

Catholics don't take the Bible as seriously . Sin is nobody else's business.

I would have a lot of sympathy for Ashers. You dont have to be a religious fundi to find the Grindr way of life sad.
The cake story is very political. Look at these backward prods in this provincial kip . The gay lobby is high profile and very organised . I would be interested in seeing support for Ashers amongst Brexit voters.
 

And I do like Felix the House cat's version of "I want to be a lesbian"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 09:24:50 AM
Obviously its a complicated issue and could set some difficult precedents but ultimately I think the cake shop owner ought to have their religious views respected even if I don't personally agree with them. Plenty of other religious views are accommodated by businesses across Europe despite the questionable moral ethics of some of their practices. In this instance this is the least incendiary case I can think of and yet look at the storm its creating, and this families livelihood could be in jeopardy over it.

I've spoken to some gay lads who've told me they find it all embarrassing. In their words "Its just a bloody cake, can't they just go somewhere else, there is plenty of other places". But then they weren't that keen on gay marriage or modern gay activism in general.

Maith thu

It is very complicated
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: doodaa on October 25, 2016, 10:44:17 AM
If they had baked the cake and offered it for sale to him without the slogan surely that would have kept them on the right side of the law

As OmaghJoe said above, they could have said they were busy. They could have done what many tradesmen the world over do every day and 'forgot' or another favourite, price it so high that no one in their right mind would pay for it lol. They could have got the message wring and 'accidentally' wrote something else.

It looks to me that Ashers wanted the fight, and still want it.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 25, 2016, 10:49:47 AM
BBC legal correspondent Joshua Rozenberg provides (a bit) of clarity:

"… there was nothing in the court’s decision requiring Ashers or any other business to promote a view with which the company’s directors disagreed. Ashers can keep within the law and not promote “other people’s views” by confining its custom-made service to birthday cakes — which is what it has said it will do.

A Jewish or Christian shopkeeper is not required to trade on the Sabbath just as a Muslim butcher is not required to sell pork. But if a business does supply a service, it must not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation — which means it must not refuse to provide a gay person with goods that it would provide to others.

In this case, said the courts, the correct comparison was not with a straight man who wanted a “gay” cake, which Ashers would have refused. It was with a gay or straight person who ordered a cake celebrating traditional marriage — which the company would have supplied.

And, as the appeal judges said, “the fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.”

In fairness to the judges, they are some very good examples.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2016, 11:06:39 AM
BBC legal correspondent Joshua Rozenberg provides (a bit) of clarity:

"… there was nothing in the court’s decision requiring Ashers or any other business to promote a view with which the company’s directors disagreed. Ashers can keep within the law and not promote “other people’s views” by confining its custom-made service to birthday cakes — which is what it has said it will do.

A Jewish or Christian shopkeeper is not required to trade on the Sabbath just as a Muslim butcher is not required to sell pork. But if a business does supply a service, it must not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation — which means it must not refuse to provide a gay person with goods that it would provide to others.

In this case, said the courts, the correct comparison was not with a straight man who wanted a “gay” cake, which Ashers would have refused. It was with a gay or straight person who ordered a cake celebrating traditional marriage — which the company would have supplied.

And, as the appeal judges said, “the fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.”

In fairness to the judges, they are some very good examples.

Things like witches on Halloween or "Mayo for Sam" are mere fantasy and are not serious issues.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 11:21:42 AM
I know in the US evangelical protestants are more resistant to accepting the gay agenda than other people.  Nordie Prods are related to the evangelical's since  a lot of evangelicals have Ulster roots. The GOP spent years flogging guns god and gays to people. The born again protestants take a literal view of the Bible. And there were no RTE Guide interviews with gay TV personalities in the Bible.

Catholics don't take the Bible as seriously . Sin is nobody else's business.

I would have a lot of sympathy for Ashers. You dont have to be a religious fundi to find the Grindr way of life sad.
The cake story is very political. Look at these backward prods in this provincial kip . The gay lobby is high profile and very organised . I would be interested in seeing support for Ashers amongst Brexit voters.
 

And I do like Felix the House cat's version of "I want to be a lesbian"

The "Grindr" way of life? I'm assuming that you're making the point that you think all gays are promiscuous? When they were going to get a cake promoting marriage? Which is an institution with monogamy as its core principle?

I notice a lot of people's "liberalism" doesn't extend as far as their ignorance.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Declan on October 25, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
Interesting perspective here

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: No wides on October 25, 2016, 01:29:53 PM
Gay goes out of his way to be offended and basks in the limelight - only in Norn Ireland.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: haranguerer on October 25, 2016, 01:55:49 PM
Interesting perspective here

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html)

That's just a load of sh**e
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2016, 02:26:05 PM
Interesting perspective here

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment-here-is-the-hypocrisy-at-the-heart-of-the-gay-wedding-cake-case-35159144.html)

That's just a load of sh**e

With such insisive analysis of the issue,  you should write an article yourself.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 25, 2016, 02:30:50 PM
BBC legal correspondent Joshua Rozenberg provides (a bit) of clarity:

"… there was nothing in the court’s decision requiring Ashers or any other business to promote a view with which the company’s directors disagreed. Ashers can keep within the law and not promote “other people’s views” by confining its custom-made service to birthday cakes — which is what it has said it will do.
What happens if some gay person comes in and requests a birthday cake with the text on the icing
"happy birthday to my gay lover"?

Quote
A Jewish or Christian shopkeeper is not required to trade on the Sabbath just as a Muslim butcher is not required to sell pork. But if a business does supply a service, it must not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation — which means it must not refuse to provide a gay person with goods that it would provide to others.
A registered business is an independent entity, separate  from the religious character and  convictions of those who own it and run it.
The 2 McArthurs as individuals have their individual religious rights and convictions protected by law
but their commercial bakery business does not inherit those same convictions. The bakery business does not take on board the religious convictions of the owners. The business has it's own entity which has to conform to the law, in this case the equality law. Just as a religious group may have a conviction that paying tax to evolutionists is sinful, but if those religious folk run a business, that business is required to conform to the tax laws

Quote
In this case, said the courts, the correct comparison was not with a straight man who wanted a “gay” cake, which Ashers would have refused. It was with a gay or straight person who ordered a cake celebrating traditional marriage — which the company would have supplied.

And, as the appeal judges said, “the fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.”

The issue was not about how a general public interpret the actions of a baker who prepared such a cake for a gay wedding.
I think the judge was getting ahead of him/herself
Can the judge speak for the public who frequent the bakery premise, the locality or the church and claim to know how those people think? Those people may have strict fundamentalist views and chose to take their business to a baker with true faith and actions.

I can see that the bakers had not an earthly or godly chance to successfully appeal the original judgement  but I really have a distaste and no respect for the legal action taken against them.
Just because there was a clear legal basis for the discrimination case did not make it right and proper.
The offense imo was 100% manufactured drama.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
I know in the US evangelical protestants are more resistant to accepting the gay agenda than other people.  Nordie Prods are related to the evangelical's since  a lot of evangelicals have Ulster roots. The GOP spent years flogging guns god and gays to people. The born again protestants take a literal view of the Bible. And there were no RTE Guide interviews with gay TV personalities in the Bible.

Catholics don't take the Bible as seriously . Sin is nobody else's business.

I would have a lot of sympathy for Ashers. You dont have to be a religious fundi to find the Grindr way of life sad.
The cake story is very political. Look at these backward prods in this provincial kip . The gay lobby is high profile and very organised . I would be interested in seeing support for Ashers amongst Brexit voters.
 

And I do like Felix the House cat's version of "I want to be a lesbian"

The "Grindr" way of life? I'm assuming that you're making the point that you think all gays are promiscuous? When they were going to get a cake promoting marriage? Which is an institution with monogamy as its core principle?

I notice a lot of people's "liberalism" doesn't extend as far as their ignorance.
I'm not . Gay people can be as conventional as everyone else.
But grindr culture has its own conventions. Women have different wiring than men so finding them ready and gagging within 50 metres takes more work, typically.   

There are still aspect of gay culture that certain people don't like. A lot of older people don't like the idea of young women as walking orifices either. It's never going to to be possible to get everyone to agree on sexuality. 
The whole area of porn is a mess. 

The core principles of marriage are social respectability and property regulation.
People are entitled to do what they want in private. But it is hard to get certain Protestant groups to accept the gay agenda. 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 04:02:48 PM
Jesus.

Quote
Women have different wiring than men so finding them ready and gagging within 50 metres takes more work, typically.   

Try putting these words together in a coherent sentence - "hole", "digging" and "stop".

Ashers were objecting to an order in from a couple supporting gay marriage. You said you had sympathy for Ashers, then made your comment about the "Grindr" way of life.

Even if I grant you that the "Grindr" way of life is a thing (and let's completely forget about the masses of single heterosexual people on Tinder), the couple in looking for the cake were supporting a cause diametrically opposite to promiscuity - so either Asher's are so ignorant as to be unable to tell the difference, in which case you should probably withhold your sympathy for them - or you are unable to tell the difference, in which case I'll probably withhold my sympathy for you.

It's a crude generalisation and you'd be the very one up in arms if someone was to use such a generalisation about any of the many constituencies whose causes you espouse on this board.

Also, just a tip - I wouldn't be telling women about how different their wiring is - if you want to walk away with your own wiring intact, that is...

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 04:40:15 PM
Easy

Women are different. If you were capable of getting pregnant you'd be different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpcJCRN9SfU
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 04:45:52 PM
You weren't talking biology, you were talking psychology. I like the Trumpian pivot though.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: oisinog on October 25, 2016, 05:14:13 PM
At the end of the day here Ashers could have declined the job easier by saying eg I'm sorry we are busy we will be unable to complete the job by the date you requested, Due to copywrite laws I am unable to produce an Image of Bert and Ernie without written permission from the owner of the copywrite.

Ashers decided to take the stance that as they on religious grounds they do not agree with the message at the end of the day that is discrimination and the courts found that

Were they targeted quite possibly, where they wrong in the eyes of the law yes. Will this help the agenda of same sex marriage in Northern Ireland I hope so
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 25, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
You weren't talking biology, you were talking psychology. I like the Trumpian pivot though.

Ehh Trump couldnt pivot if he was on a feckin seesaw?

Anyway main discussion subject aside Whats the difference between these two? In medical terms arent they believed to be the same thing, joined up by Neuropsychology?

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 05:26:29 PM
Another thread to hijack Joe? Down the rabbit hole with you
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 05:47:57 PM
I only know the name of one bakery in Belfast...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 25, 2016, 05:50:37 PM
Another thread to hijack Joe? Down the rabbit hole with you

Oh just asking questions Tiger, I can offer you my sincere apologies if I offended you

Here's a tip tho.... considering you dont know me or anything about me or even if Im a bot (like seafoid ;)) try to ignore my username and stick to the points I make or questions I ask, it should reduce your stress levels

BTW speaking of down the rabbit hole, Ive been having a think about that article you posted on the other thread...was gonna post an analysis of the authors point (Note: his point, not the point you tried to hijack for) if your interested?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 06:03:12 PM
I have no stress with you Joe, I just prefer to sticking to the point of the thread (a case which the central theme was discrimination against homosexuals, which was why I was pointing out Seafoid's generalisations about homosexuals) rather than getting into a discussion with you about neuro -psychology.

If you want to start a thread about quantum physics, please go ahead - you need neither my permission nor my participation.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 06:53:10 PM
The Ashers owners are evangelical

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row
A bakery in Northern Ireland owned by evangelical Christians has lost an appeal to overturn a conviction that found it guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a pro-gay-marriage themed cake."Speaking before going into the appeal court on Monday morning, Daniel McArthur had said: ”This has never been about the customer. It has been about a message promoting a cause that contradicts the Bible.”

Evangelicals take a literal view of the Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
"Biblicism is reverence for the Bible and a high regard for biblical authority. All Evangelicals believe in biblical inspiration, though they disagree over how this inspiration should be defined. Many Evangelicals believe in biblical inerrancy, while other Evangelicals believe in biblical infallibility"

It is not the same as RTE Guide readers who like Aonghus MacGrianna and think he deserves the same as everyone else.

Evangelicals vs gay rights activists is 2 immovable objects
Evangelicals think differently

Would Ashers provide a cake with confession or the Virgin mary in icing? Probably not. But why would a catholic wind them up ?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 06:54:49 PM
They should have gone to McCarrons bakery in Dromore.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 06:57:37 PM
You weren't talking biology, you were talking psychology. I like the Trumpian pivot though.
You think the psychology is the same?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 07:07:15 PM
There is no way that chasing evangelicals through the courts will secure gay marriage in NI
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2016/oct/24/christian-bakers-lose-gay-cake-row-appeal-were-extremely-disappointed-video
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 25, 2016, 07:10:40 PM
At the end of the day here Ashers could have declined the job easier by saying eg I'm sorry we are busy we will be unable to complete the job by the date you requested,

In other words you are saying the Ashers could have lied, that they could have adopted a low ethical and moral position by knowingly telling a falsehood, but at the same time an entirely accepted legally position because then the burden rests on the gay couple to find enough evidence to prove that the bakery was not too busy.
And what if the gay couple did happen to find good quality evidence that the bakery was able to fulfill a similar order placed the next day within the time frame in question? what then?  The Ashtons would then have to compound lies with more lies. Still, in court one can get away with telling obvious lies as long as there was not enough evidence to prove  that they were lies.
Quote
Due to copywrite laws I am unable to produce an Image of Bert and Ernie without written permission from the owner of the copywrite.

Ashers decided to take the stance that as they on religious grounds they do not agree with the message at the end of the day that is discrimination and the courts found that

Were they targeted quite possibly, where they wrong in the eyes of the law yes. Will this help the agenda of same sex marriage in Northern Ireland I hope so

The Ashers could have told the truth but with legal advice take a different stance whilst maintaining their 'moral'position.
They could have told bert and ernie that the bakery employees have strong religious reservations and refuse to work on the order, but the business (the bakery) is duty bound to complete the order, that the bakery can advertise for a baker but that will take time or the Ashtons can find another bakery to complete the order.
Employees are allowed to exercise religious objections but not the business offering the service.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 25, 2016, 07:12:44 PM
I have no stress with you Joe, I just prefer to sticking to the point of the thread (a case which the central theme was discrimination against homosexuals, which was why I was pointing out Seafoid's generalisations about homosexuals) rather than getting into a discussion with you about neuro -psychology.

If you want to start a thread about quantum physics, please go ahead - you need neither my permission nor my participation.

I was picking up a point that you had made ET about psychology and biology being different. The accuracy of that statement would be crucial to your counter of seafoids point, I was merely asking if it was correct or not (as its against the current prevailing thought in medical terms), cos unless it was an accurate statement your counter collapses. Not that Im actually on either side of the discussion but the validity of your statement is very debatable.

It was more meta than quantum, but anyway dont think there is alot of interest on here so Id be wasting my time. I thought you might have been since you posted it, but it would appear not.

Are you sure you dont get stressed? You always you seem to be fierce angry with me?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 07:25:43 PM
It's not Ashers motivations I'm questioning - I know full well what the Evangelical attitude is towards homosexuality, and the case itself is a difficult one, which I would not have liked to have had to judged.


It's your motivations - for the following statements

Quote
You dont have to be a religious fundi to find the Grindr way of life sad.

Which is a really crude generalisation, reductive of the homosexual community, and completely irrelevant given that gay marriage, which is a monogamous commitment, was the cause that they were making the cake for.

Quote
Women have different wiring than men so finding them ready and gagging within 50 metres takes more work, typically. 


Another generalisation, which I doubt you'd get away with to an audience of women.

Basically, it takes all sorts, there's nowt as queer as folk, and the reducing of people to categories (dubious ones at that) is exactly the kind of thing which causes these controversies in the first place.

And I'm sorry, but at a very basic level, although the cake shop in Dromore might do a lovely gay marriage cake, recommending that you have to go there rather than Ashers, could be taken as saying "well, use that ould water fountain over there, it's as good as this one."

I can understand if people feel that the gay couple in question were being provocateurs, I honestly do, and people have a right to live by their faith. But two things here - firstly, even Jesus himself recognized the need to reconcile the secular with the religious ("Render unto Caesar")

And secondly, if you're a gay person living in a society that denies you a right that is available to all others, than it is an easy logical step to make to actively provoke the authorities to highlight the injustice - and in a country with such a strong record of Civil Rights protesting, that should be easy to recognise.



Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 07:27:58 PM
I have no stress with you Joe, I just prefer to sticking to the point of the thread (a case which the central theme was discrimination against homosexuals, which was why I was pointing out Seafoid's generalisations about homosexuals) rather than getting into a discussion with you about neuro -psychology.

If you want to start a thread about quantum physics, please go ahead - you need neither my permission nor my participation.

I was picking up a point that you had made ET about psychology and biology being different. The accuracy of that statement would be crucial to your counter of seafoids point, I was merely asking if it was correct or not (as its against the current prevailing thought in medical terms), cos unless it was an accurate statement your counter collapses. Not that Im actually on either side of the discussion but the validity of your statement is very debatable.

It was more meta than quantum, but anyway dont think there is alot of interest on here so Id be wasting my time. I thought you might have been since you posted it, but it would appear not.

Are you sure you dont get stressed? You always you seem to be fierce angry with me?

I'm confident in my argument as it stands Joe, with or without your judgement on the matter. Not angry at all with you, just not wasting my time with you. Big difference.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2016, 07:42:16 PM
At the end of the day here Ashers could have declined the job easier by saying eg I'm sorry we are busy we will be unable to complete the job by the date you requested, Due to copywrite laws I am unable to produce an Image of Bert and Ernie without written permission from the owner of the copywrite.

Ashers decided to take the stance that as they on religious grounds they do not agree with the message at the end of the day that is discrimination and the courts found that

Were they targeted quite possibly, where they wrong in the eyes of the law yes. Will this help the agenda of same sex marriage in Northern Ireland I hope so
I don't think it will help the cause.
Winding up people through the courts is very risky
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 25, 2016, 07:45:39 PM
I have no stress with you Joe, I just prefer to sticking to the point of the thread (a case which the central theme was discrimination against homosexuals, which was why I was pointing out Seafoid's generalisations about homosexuals) rather than getting into a discussion with you about neuro -psychology.

If you want to start a thread about quantum physics, please go ahead - you need neither my permission nor my participation.

I was picking up a point that you had made ET about psychology and biology being different. The accuracy of that statement would be crucial to your counter of seafoids point, I was merely asking if it was correct or not (as its against the current prevailing thought in medical terms), cos unless it was an accurate statement your counter collapses. Not that Im actually on either side of the discussion but the validity of your statement is very debatable.

It was more meta than quantum, but anyway dont think there is alot of interest on here so Id be wasting my time. I thought you might have been since you posted it, but it would appear not.

Are you sure you dont get stressed? You always you seem to be fierce angry with me?

I'm confident in my argument as it stands Joe, with or without your judgement on the matter. Not angry at all with you, just not wasting my time with you. Big difference.

Its certainly not my judgement, its the prevailing opinion in medicine. In fact Im probably more with you that they're seperate. However its basically unknown either way so your point is on shaky turf.
Also Im just wondering if you still hold your opinion in spite of the medical opinion to the contrary?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 07:52:44 PM
I have no stress with you Joe, I just prefer to sticking to the point of the thread (a case which the central theme was discrimination against homosexuals, which was why I was pointing out Seafoid's generalisations about homosexuals) rather than getting into a discussion with you about neuro -psychology.

If you want to start a thread about quantum physics, please go ahead - you need neither my permission nor my participation.

I was picking up a point that you had made ET about psychology and biology being different. The accuracy of that statement would be crucial to your counter of seafoids point, I was merely asking if it was correct or not (as its against the current prevailing thought in medical terms), cos unless it was an accurate statement your counter collapses. Not that Im actually on either side of the discussion but the validity of your statement is very debatable.

It was more meta than quantum, but anyway dont think there is alot of interest on here so Id be wasting my time. I thought you might have been since you posted it, but it would appear not.

Are you sure you dont get stressed? You always you seem to be fierce angry with me?

I'm confident in my argument as it stands Joe, with or without your judgement on the matter. Not angry at all with you, just not wasting my time with you. Big difference.

Its certainly not my judgement, its the prevailing opinion in medicine. In fact Im probably more with you that they're seperate. However its basically unknown either way so your point is on shaky turf.
Also Im just wondering if you still hold your opinion in spite of the medical opinion to the contrary?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: easytiger95 on October 25, 2016, 07:53:52 PM
Ah the omaghjoe default position. Have you ever heard of a rhetorical device? Look it up.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: oisinog on October 25, 2016, 08:03:06 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on October 25, 2016, 09:28:15 PM
I think they are still doing ok. I notice they seem to supply tescos. They also opened a big place in belfast city centre post this and it always look busy. While they will lose business from some after this they will also gain quite a bit i think.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 25, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Maybe the  brethren from 'ulster say no  to .....  ( fill in space with appropriate armageddon)'  organised a fighting fund for the Ashers.

i
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: oisinog on October 25, 2016, 09:44:12 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Maybe the  brethren from 'ulster say no  to .....  ( fill in space with appropriate armageddon)'  organised a fighting fund for the Ashers.

i

That the probably did and the amount of advertising they have received probably comes to more than the legal costs.

Hopefully the winners from this will be the LGBT community who's own marriage will be recognised is this wee backward county we live in
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: imtommygunn on October 25, 2016, 09:55:48 PM
Nothing like that will ever happen while the dup have the ability to play the petition of concern card.

I would suspect ashers won't end up poor from it either.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on October 25, 2016, 10:04:12 PM
I only know the name of one bakery in Belfast...

Ormeau?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Tony Baloney on October 25, 2016, 10:08:54 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Asher's won't pay a penny of that themselves.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 5 Sams on October 25, 2016, 10:27:57 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Asher's won't pay a penny of that themselves.

Heard that today..wont cost them a cent..
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 25, 2016, 10:53:34 PM
Of course it is we,the taxpayers,who will foot the bill as usual.Time the discredited equality commission was scrapped altogether >:(. You cannot profess to be a Christian then print anti Christian messages, even as part of a business transaction.In fact I would contend that making money by doing so is even more hypocritical, and insulting.

Gay supremacy must be halted now.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Rossfan on October 25, 2016, 10:56:00 PM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Maybe the  brethren from 'ulster say no  to .....  ( fill in space with appropriate armageddon)'  organised a fighting fund for the Ashers.

i

That the probably did and the amount of advertising they have received probably comes to more than the legal costs.

Hopefully the winners from this will be the LGBT community who's own marriage will be recognised is this wee backward county we live in
Can gay Nordie couples as Irish citizens not get married in the 26 Cos or as Brit citizens not get married in England, Scotland or Wales.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 26, 2016, 01:28:40 AM
Of course it is we,the taxpayers,who will foot the bill as usual.Time the discredited equality commission was scrapped altogether >:(. You cannot profess to be a Christian then print anti Christian messages, even as part of a business transaction.In fact I would contend that making money by doing so is even more hypocritical, and insulting.

Gay supremacy must be halted now.

No one is forcing them to print anti Christian messages, if Ashers didn't want to print cakes with messages about Gay marriage they don't have to providing they don't then print messages about marriage.  The position would be the same for a Gay baker, if they weren't prepared to print a cake saying support heterosexual marriage only then they couldn't print a cake saying support Gay marriage.

Printing a cake does not mean you ascribe to or endorse the message on the cake.  It simply means you are providing a service.

It was the same for the hotel owners in England, don't want gay couples staying in your hotel thats fine then as long as no couples are entitled to stay. 

It is equality not gay supremacy
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 26, 2016, 04:41:54 AM
Ah the omaghjoe default position. Have you ever heard of a rhetorical device? Look it up.

Here you go Tiger from wikipedia:

In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Rhetorical devices can be used to evoke an emotional response in the audience, and that is not their primary purpose.

I dont really see how pointing out the problems with your point is trying to persuade you of anything, and perhaps even more to the point what the problem would be with using a rhetorical device it? Seems to me to be the basis of debate?

Maybe you could explain how I was using a rhetorical device and what the problem with it is?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 06:31:21 AM
Of course it is we,the taxpayers,who will foot the bill as usual.Time the discredited equality commission was scrapped altogether >:(. You cannot profess to be a Christian then print anti Christian messages, even as part of a business transaction.In fact I would contend that making money by doing so is even more hypocritical, and insulting.

Gay supremacy must be halted now.

No one is forcing them to print anti Christian messages, if Ashers didn't want to print cakes with messages about Gay marriage they don't have to providing they don't then print messages about marriage.  The position would be the same for a Gay baker, if they weren't prepared to print a cake saying support heterosexual marriage only then they couldn't print a cake saying support Gay marriage.

Printing a cake does not mean you ascribe to or endorse the message on the cake.  It simply means you are providing a service.

It was the same for the hotel owners in England, don't want gay couples staying in your hotel thats fine then as long as no couples are entitled to stay. 

It is equality not gay supremacy
Equality is the battlefield. But it is not about equality. The DUP probably paid costs.
The reason this story is so interesting is because it is about 2 ideologies going head to head.
The Shinners are catholic and support gay marriage. But the DUP keeps fobbing them off. Evangelical prods do not accept gay marriage and consider it a sin.

You cant have equality when sin is in the equation. You can't force people to accept sin.


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 06:33:09 AM
I bet Church of Ireland Prods accept gay marriage
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 26, 2016, 07:50:47 AM
If you are a Christian and believe homosexuality (never mind gay marriage) is sinful (and according to scripture,the basis of faith,it is) then it is absurd to be asked or expected to carry out a business transaction in which you are required to suspend or ignore your sincerely held beliefs and facilitate,if not actually endorse something which runs contrary to your beliefs.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: manfromdelmonte on October 26, 2016, 08:07:33 AM
sure all religion is mumbo jumbo

I'm actually going to side on the side of the bakery

they were asked to provide a service, they didn't want to when they saw the job
what is the issue?

same as a mechanic being asked to do a job and then refusing when they see the work that needed to be done
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 08:20:59 AM
If you are a Christian and believe homosexuality (never mind gay marriage) is sinful (and according to scripture,the basis of faith,it is) then it is absurd to be asked or expected to carry out a business transaction in which you are required to suspend or ignore your sincerely held beliefs and facilitate,if not actually endorse something which runs contrary to your beliefs.
Your post that started the whole thing is still on the ball. What a waste of money
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: oisinog on October 26, 2016, 08:28:52 AM
Main street I used those reasons as an example. I'm sure if the owners look hard enough they would have found a legitimate reason to turn the order down.

As I said they were probably targeted but Mr Lee works for am LGBT charity so they may have received several complaints that this was happening. At the end of the day the owners of Asher's are now facing a legal bill of 180000 for turning down a service.
Maybe the  brethren from 'ulster say no  to .....  ( fill in space with appropriate armageddon)'  organised a fighting fund for the Ashers.

i

That the probably did and the amount of advertising they have received probably comes to more than the legal costs.

Hopefully the winners from this will be the LGBT community who's own marriage will be recognised is this wee backward county we live in
Can gay Nordie couples as Irish citizens not get married in the 26 Cos or as Brit citizens not get married in England, Scotland or Wales.


They can but its not recognised as a marriage its a civil partnership
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 26, 2016, 08:31:50 AM
If you are a Christian and believe homosexuality (never mind gay marriage) is sinful (and according to scripture,the basis of faith,it is) then it is absurd to be asked or expected to carry out a business transaction in which you are required to suspend or ignore your sincerely held beliefs and facilitate,if not actually endorse something which runs contrary to your beliefs.

No it's not firstly regardless of your beliefs you are bound by the laws of the place where you reside and intend to carry out business. You can not opt of those laws because of your belief. No one is being forced to engage in any sort of transaction. The court ruling was very clear don't want to provide a service to someone based on their sexuality that's fine just don't provide the service to anyone. If you choose to provide that service then do so in accordance with the law.

Secondly providing a service to someone does not mean you endorse them, their way of life or the message they are promoting.  It simply means you are providing a service.


In terms of the costs of the whole thing, the Ashers bakery (and their owners) would most likely have to have paid the costs for the Appeal but the Equality Commission would have met most of their own costs for the original hearing so I suppose we all paid for the case in a way.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 08:54:27 AM
If you are a Christian and believe homosexuality (never mind gay marriage) is sinful (and according to scripture,the basis of faith,it is) then it is absurd to be asked or expected to carry out a business transaction in which you are required to suspend or ignore your sincerely held beliefs and facilitate,if not actually endorse something which runs contrary to your beliefs.

No it's not firstly regardless of your beliefs you are bound by the laws of the place where you reside and intend to carry out business. You can not opt of those laws because of your belief. No one is being forced to engage in any sort of transaction. The court ruling was very clear don't want to provide a service to someone based on their sexuality that's fine just don't provide the service to anyone. If you choose to provide that service then do so in accordance with the law.

Secondly providing a service to someone does not mean you endorse them, their way of life or the message they are promoting.  It simply means you are providing a service.


In terms of the costs of the whole thing, the Ashers bakery (and their owners) would most likely have to have paid the costs for the Appeal but the Equality Commission would have met most of their own costs for the original hearing so I suppose we all paid for the case in a way.
David

If you are a born again Christian you don't see the world in the same way as other people. Listen to any Katie Taylor interview .
Doing business with means endorsing, for them.
Katie wouldn't sell a cake either.

There have to be smarter ways of getting around the evangelicals
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Rossfan on October 26, 2016, 11:31:08 AM
So is the ruling that you can't refuse to provide a service to a gay person but if Tony F ( assuming he's hetero :D)
asked them to bake the cake with the same message they can legally refuse?

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: oisinog on October 26, 2016, 11:38:45 AM
So is the ruling that you can't refuse to provide a service to a gay person but if Tony F ( assuming he's hetero :D)
asked them to bake the cake with the same message they can legally refuse?

No they cant legally refuse it as that would still be indirect descrimination.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Tom Elliott regrets that he will be unable to attend . . .
NEWTON EMERSON
NEWTON'S OPTIC: Gay pride parades and GAA matches aren’t the only gaps in the UUP leader’s social diary
HAVING RULED out attending GAA matches or gay pride parades, new UUP leader Tom Elliott explains why he will also not be present at the following popular events:
Belfast Giants Game
“I understand that we have several sporting communities here in Northern Ireland and I fully respect that recreational choice, but I must point out that ice hockey is still strongly associated with violence, especially hitting people with sticks. Furthermore, when violence breaks out the clock is stopped and everyone is just expected to wait, which is something I think we have had quite enough of in the pro-union community.”
Ulster Orchestra Concert
“I recognise that the Ulster Orchestra has found room for drums and flutes but there is still far too much emphasis on the harp for me to see it as a shared cymbal.”
Balmoral Agricultural Show
“I do of course come from a farming constituency and I fully acknowledge the right of the agricultural community to pursue their way of life. However, it is a fact that farming involves several unnatural practices – I’m thinking here particularly of artificial insemination – which I find personally offensive both as a Christian and as an animal lover.”
Foyle Halloween Carnival
“Although I have come to accept that the people of Londonderry are practising satanists, this is obviously not something I would ever wish to endorse.”
Hillsborough Oyster Festival
“I don’t want to stop anyone from enjoying themselves or having ‘fun’ under adequately policed and regulated circumstances. But in my experience the Hillsborough Oyster Festival is full of arrogant north Down yuppies who won’t clam up about their cars and house prices, and I’m afraid that I just find the whole thing terribly shellfish.”
Newtownards Air Show
“If God had meant us to fly micro-lights, he would have given lawnmowers wings.”
Auld Lammas Fair
“I appreciate that this is the highlight of the year for the Catholic town of Ballycastle. However, it still only features around 400 stalls, which is not nearly enough stalling for a leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.”
Portrush Raft Race
“I accept that this raises a considerable amount of money for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Nevertheless, and despite the word ‘royal’ in its title, the RNLI is a cross-Border body whose existence we did not recognise in the Belfast Agreement. I also feel that if anyone is going to launch themselves on a home-made raft, they should clear it first with my campaign advisers.”
Belfast Fashion Week
“Please see my earlier answer on gay pride parades.”
Christmas Continental Market
“While it is true that some UUP councillors support this event in the grounds of Belfast City Hall, it remains the case that Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy are over-represented in comparison to Protestant countries such as Germany and Holland. I am also uncomfortable with the term ‘Continent’, preferring the more accurate term ‘main-mainland’.”
Planet Love
“I welcome the fact that Northern Ireland has a dance music event which attracts people from both traditions, but I feel that the correct place for teenagers to spend a weekend going out of their minds is the Young Unionists annual conference.”
West Belfast Festival
“It’s even more boring than I am.”
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 02:53:12 PM
100324 NEWTON'S OPTIC: I AM standing on the doorstep of a house in Portadown about to take part in the dining experience du jour, or more precisely du soir . Secret evening Dupper clubs, where D UP voters meet over a meal, are increasingly popular across 54 per cent of Northern Ireland. Peering through the lace curtains into the dining room with attached conservatory, I see a group of people sitting at a long table as if Grant Wood had painted The Last Supper , not that I would expect any of them to get that reference.
Tonight’s event is hosted by Tim Lyttle and Iain Rodgers in their suburban home at No 57, The Development, Bleary. Lyttle (39) is an estate agent, car dealer and lay preacher who divides his time between Portadown and an apartment in Spain. Rodgers (21) is a sports masseur.
“We had the idea for a Dupper club after noticing that DUP voters don’t get invited to dinner parties,” explains Lyttle, ushering me in across the perfectly fitted laminate hallway flooring. “Even if you get invited to one by accident you can’t admit being a DUP voter or it all goes terribly quiet and everyone suddenly has to leave. So we put up an invitation for like-minded people on Facebake, the Ulster-Scots social networking site, and the rest, as they say, is traditional.” Lyttle and Rodgers certainly know their way around a Shaker-style pine fitted kitchen. Over a starter of Scottish farmed salmon on sliced wheaten bread, served with just a dash of Jif lemon, our dining companions introduce themselves. Their varied backgrounds read like the cast of an Ingmar Bergman comedy, not that I would expect them to get that reference either.
To my right is Mervyn Burke (45), a prison officer who also keeps a small dairy herd; Selwyn Black (32), a taxi driver with several buy-to-let properties; and Alwyn Baird (28), a plumber with a flourishing e-bay business in Rangers memorabilia. To my left is no one at all.
A main course of gammon and pineapple with duchess potatoes soon sets mouths watering. Guests are encouraged not to bring alcohol, as both red and white grape Shloer are provided.
“The food is what I’m here for,” Burke says. “Nobody else makes caramel squares with cooking chocolate any more. I know real chocolate is just as cheap these days but that’s not the point. Some things should always be slightly bitter for no good reason. At Dupper club, people understand that.” “This is a great way to socialise,” Black says. “I don’t feel comfortable in cafes since that whole Iris Robinson thing.” “I’m here for the women, Baird says, “which is too bad, because I can’t help noticing that there aren’t any.” “There aren’t any caramel squares either,” Burke says. “If I’d known how much it would cost to be a plumber, I’d have gone to university,” Baird says, starting off what will doubtless be a night of sparkling dinner party conversation.
“Well, this has been absolutely fascinating,” I say, reaching for my coat. “But as you’ve suggested a donation, aren’t you basically running an untaxed and uninsured restaurant? ”Oh, no, never!” Rodgers exclaims. “Never! Never! Never!”
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 26, 2016, 05:58:40 PM
While I agree no one should be refused service on account of their sexual leaning,or anything else,there should be limits on product or service adornments/messages,especially when there is a conscience related conflict arising out of such adornments.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 06:44:01 PM
While I agree no one should be refused service on account of their sexual leaning,or anything else,there should be limits on product or service adornments/messages,especially when there is a conscience related conflict arising out of such adornments.
There should be clear song and dance limitations
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 26, 2016, 07:30:37 PM
While I agree no one should be refused service on account of their sexual leaning,or anything else,there should be limits on product or service adornments/messages,especially when there is a conscience related conflict arising out of such adornments.

Would you support Celtic if an openly gay player, advocating gay marriage, was on the team?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on October 26, 2016, 07:39:37 PM
Yes.I am only interested in football ability.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: muppet on October 26, 2016, 08:25:32 PM
Yes.I am only interested in football ability.

Good!

Maybe Ashers should focus on cake making ability?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on October 26, 2016, 08:35:00 PM
Yes.I am only interested in football ability.

Good!

Maybe Ashers should focus on cake making ability?
That analogy doesn't work. the openly gay Celtic player would need to force his views on an Evangelical Rangers player via a kick in the nuts or something in order to get the law involved.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: No wides on December 03, 2016, 11:56:47 AM
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/vegetarian-cafe-boycotts-new-5-note-amid-row-it-contains-animal-fat-a3411406.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/vegetarian-cafe-boycotts-new-5-note-amid-row-it-contains-animal-fat-a3411406.html)

So if I go in to buy something and all I have is the new five pound note, surely this is no different from Ashers refusing to make a gay cake!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on December 03, 2016, 01:25:11 PM
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/vegetarian-cafe-boycotts-new-5-note-amid-row-it-contains-animal-fat-a3411406.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/vegetarian-cafe-boycotts-new-5-note-amid-row-it-contains-animal-fat-a3411406.html)

So if I go in to buy something and all I have is the new five pound note, surely this is no different from Ashers refusing to make a gay cake!

You can go out and get some different notes or coins. They're not refusing to provide the specific service you're looking to pay for.

Some businesses operate cash only. Some will accept debit cards, but not credit cards and vice versa.

Is there a law against some shop owner refusing to accept payment for 100 pounds worth of goods in pennies?


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: No wides on December 03, 2016, 01:29:07 PM
They are not refusing it because it isn't legal tender, they are refusing it because it goes against their beliefs, why couldn't the offended gay just go to another cake shop?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on December 03, 2016, 03:15:32 PM
The cash-only shopkeeper isn't turning down credit cards because they aren't legal tender either.

If one business has the right to refuse service to a gay person (or Christian or Muslim or black person etc.), then any business has that right. So you could end up with a person with no place to go to get their cake or whatever it is they need.

Look, I'm not saying this vegan place is not over the top. But I don't see what legal rights are being violated.

If there were laws saying any business has to accept all legal tender of the jurisdiction, you might have a case.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: No wides on December 03, 2016, 04:09:30 PM
So if the UK issues a five pound note with the image of Stephen Fry would Asher's be ok to refuse it as they don't want to be handling money with gays on it, after all you could get the five pounds changed into coins or go away and get another five pounds?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on December 03, 2016, 05:02:25 PM
The cash-only shopkeeper isn't turning down credit cards because they aren't legal tender either.

If one business has the right to refuse service to a gay person (or Christian or Muslim or black person etc.), then any business has that right. So you could end up with a person with no place to go to get their cake or whatever it is they need.

Look, I'm not saying this vegan place is not over the top. But I don't see what legal rights are being violated.

If there were laws saying any business has to accept all legal tender of the jurisdiction, you might have a case.
I don't think Asher's refuse service to gay people. I'm sure a gay person could walk in and purchase a sweet chilli sausage roll in an Asher's bakery. They don't produce goods which carry pro-gay messages, regardless of whether the person requiring the service is gay or not.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on December 03, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
So if the UK issues a five pound note with the image of Stephen Fry would Asher's be ok to refuse it as they don't want to be handling money with gays on it, after all you could get the five pounds changed into coins or go away and get another five pounds?

It would appear so.

Not living in the UK, I stand to be corrected.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on December 03, 2016, 09:15:54 PM
The cash-only shopkeeper isn't turning down credit cards because they aren't legal tender either.

If one business has the right to refuse service to a gay person (or Christian or Muslim or black person etc.), then any business has that right. So you could end up with a person with no place to go to get their cake or whatever it is they need.

Look, I'm not saying this vegan place is not over the top. But I don't see what legal rights are being violated.

If there were laws saying any business has to accept all legal tender of the jurisdiction, you might have a case.
I don't think Asher's refuse service to gay people. I'm sure a gay person could walk in and purchase a sweet chilli sausage roll in an Asher's bakery. They don't produce goods which carry pro-gay messages, regardless of whether the person requiring the service is gay or not.

Fair enough, but their actions were still a form of discrimination not allowed under the law.

Does this cash thing fall into that bracket? I don't see how.

Has it ever come up before? Have any fundamentalist christians ever refused to deal in Charles Darwin 10 pound notes?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: seafoid on December 03, 2016, 10:44:48 PM
Would Ashers produce a cake with a message about climate change on it?
Their brethren evangelical bakers in Missouri probably would not .
Do the Ashers people believe in the Rapture?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on December 03, 2016, 11:04:32 PM
Would Ashers produce a cake with a message about climate change on it?
Their brethren evangelical bakers in Missouri probably would not .
Do the Ashers people believe in the Rapture?
I hear it's the gays they're after.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: under the bar on December 03, 2016, 11:10:13 PM
Presumably they wouldn't produce a "Santa is the best thing about Christmas" cake either then? 

By preventing gay people the rights that are afforded by every other forward thinking western nation,  the DUP has effectively hung Christian business community here out to dry. 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: red hander on December 05, 2016, 04:45:48 PM
Yer man McArthur's wife, she's fond of the oul camera... she's loving the publicity. Expect her to become a regular in the Belfast Telegraph a la 'inspirational'  female types (ie non-entities with mammaries) like Brenda Shankey, Mairia Cahill and Kerry McLean
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on December 05, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."

The judges also said that Ashers would not have objected to a cake carrying the message: "Support Heterosexual Marriage" or indeed "Support Marriage".

"We accept that it was the use of the word 'gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled," they said.

"The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation.

"This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.

"Accordingly this was direct discrimination."
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: T Fearon on May 08, 2017, 06:02:33 PM
I see Ashers profits topped £1.5m last year.Seems all the gay supremacists have done is boost the profile of this company.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: bennydorano on May 08, 2017, 06:49:26 PM
They might be needing the profits....again

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/ashers-refuses-to-make-gay-engagement-cake-35669084.html
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2017, 07:31:24 PM
Who wears the ring? One of them or two of them?

If it's both, Jewellers must be raking it in!!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Samforever on May 08, 2017, 07:43:01 PM
Who wears the ring? One of them or two of them?

If it's both, Jewellers must be raking it in!!
FFS don't mention their rings
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: TabClear on May 08, 2017, 10:12:49 PM
They might be needing the profits....again

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/ashers-refuses-to-make-gay-engagement-cake-35669084.html

Without opening the whole debate around the original case this woman who lives in London,  who wanted a cake delivered in London, ordered said cake from Northern Ireland from a company who she knew was likely to,at best, fulfil the order reluctantly. And then finds she can get said cake easily in London. .....and then has her outraged and surprised statement ready.  Bint just trying to create a confrontation and generate publicity. If I was being cynical I would say the slightly unusual message on the cake was deliberately provocative....A moron of the highest order

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 08, 2017, 10:18:13 PM
They might be needing the profits....again

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/ashers-refuses-to-make-gay-engagement-cake-35669084.html

Without opening the whole debate around the original case this woman who lives in London,  who wanted a cake delivered in London, ordered said cake from Northern Ireland from a company who she knew was likely to,at best, fulfil the order reluctantly. And then finds she can get said cake easily in London. .....and then has her outraged and surprised statement ready.  Bint just trying to create a confrontation and generate publicity. If I was being cynical I would say the slightly unusual message on the cake was deliberately provocative....A moron of the highest order

Agreed.

The last cake was the same.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 09, 2017, 12:25:01 AM
So following the logic of the original lawsuit, an Orange Band Hall (with strong links to paramilitaries) could sue a Catholic bakery and make bake them a cake to celebrating some provocative and offensive event.....people need to grow the fvck up
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: nrico2006 on May 09, 2017, 08:18:37 AM
The whole Ashers thing is a joke.  This latest example is nothing but some sad doll trying to start more bother.  Surely though Ashers can't get in trouble as the message that the woman wanted was in relation to the supporting of an illegal activity.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnneycool on May 09, 2017, 08:34:57 AM
So following the logic of the original lawsuit, an Orange Band Hall (with strong links to paramilitaries) could sue a Catholic bakery and make bake them a cake to celebrating some provocative and offensive event.....people need to grow the fvck up

Or a black lad wants a white supremacists bakery to make a birthday cake for his young fella, surely they've the right to refuse!!!!!   :o

FFS if you're a bakery, just bake the fuckin cake.

Is there such a thing as a christian/catholic/atheist bakery?

And yes these one are looking to stir the shite, so say you'll make the cake, but charge them the sun and the stars to do so.

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 09, 2017, 09:09:33 AM
So following the logic of the original lawsuit, an Orange Band Hall (with strong links to paramilitaries) could sue a Catholic bakery and make bake them a cake to celebrating some provocative and offensive event.....people need to grow the fvck up

So a gay message on a cake is akin to a message promoting paramilitary activity??

I'm pretty sure it's not but the fact you would equate the two speaks volumes!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 09, 2017, 09:21:16 AM
The original had "support gay marriage" on it. Who wants that on a cake unless they're trying to stir the shit? It should've been thrown out of court for that.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: screenexile on May 09, 2017, 10:04:45 AM
The original had "support gay marriage" on it. Who wants that on a cake unless they're trying to stir the shit? It should've been thrown out of court for that.

Doesn't matter if they're trying to stir the shit or not it's still against the law!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: nrico2006 on May 09, 2017, 10:19:25 AM
The original had "support gay marriage" on it. Who wants that on a cake unless they're trying to stir the shit? It should've been thrown out of court for that.

Doesn't matter if they're trying to stir the shit or not it's still against the law!

Is it against the law to 'not promote' something that is illegal though?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on May 09, 2017, 10:22:06 AM
The original had "support gay marriage" on it. Who wants that on a cake unless they're trying to stir the shit? It should've been thrown out of court for that.

Doesn't matter if they're trying to stir the shit or not it's still against the law!

So Stephen Fry could have what he said (if found guilty of blasphemy) put on a cake too then?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2017, 09:36:53 PM
I'm still waiting on the good Christian McArthur folk to challenge the Court of Appeal decision....oh well, it gave Daniel the opportunity to preach his message of the Lord to us all. Praise be to Jaysus.

Hallelujah.. The profound Daniel will have his day out in London at The Supreme Court. Pencilled in for two days in October 2017. I hope there's no evil 'Pride' marches going on in that capital of Sodomy then. Think of the children!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 09, 2017, 09:55:43 PM
I'm still waiting on the good Christian McArthur folk to challenge the Court of Appeal decision....oh well, it gave Daniel the opportunity to preach his message of the Lord to us all. Praise be to Jaysus.
When did you come back?!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 10, 2017, 12:36:31 AM
So following the logic of the original lawsuit, an Orange Band Hall (with strong links to paramilitaries) could sue a Catholic bakery and make bake them a cake to celebrating some provocative and offensive event.....people need to grow the fvck up

So a gay message on a cake is akin to a message promoting paramilitary activity??

I'm pretty sure it's not but the fact you would equate the two speaks volumes!

Haha....to Christians like these ones, the notion that 2 fellas would be riding the arses of each other is beyond both comprehension and understanding.

 There are lots of things that people find offensive....what about a caterer from a Nationalist area being asked to cater the retirement Party of a PSNI officer....following your logic they should be forced to take on the job they agree with it or not
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: StGallsGAA on May 10, 2017, 12:49:34 AM
So following the logic of the original lawsuit, an Orange Band Hall (with strong links to paramilitaries) could sue a Catholic bakery and make bake them a cake to celebrating some provocative and offensive event.....people need to grow the fvck up

So a gay message on a cake is akin to a message promoting paramilitary activity??

I'm pretty sure it's not but the fact you would equate the two speaks volumes!

Haha....to Christians like these ones, the notion that 2 fellas would be riding the arses of each other is beyond both comprehension and understanding.

 There are lots of things that people find offensive....what about a caterer from a Nationalist area being asked to cater the retirement Party of a PSNI officer....following your logic they should be forced to take on the job they agree with it or not

Didn't realise the original cake order was to have a photo of 2 people riding the @r$€$ off one another.   This may be a revelation the court weren't aware of.  ::). Asher's should probably appeal on the basis of new evidence by Whitey.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on May 10, 2017, 02:02:03 AM
Happy to help in any way I can
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 10, 2017, 05:14:02 AM
I'm still waiting on the good Christian McArthur folk to challenge the Court of Appeal decision....oh well, it gave Daniel the opportunity to preach his message of the Lord to us all. Praise be to Jaysus.
When did you come back?!

Tony, I was released from custody, following the dropping of a blasphemy charge against me, just last week.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Tony Baloney on May 10, 2017, 07:45:51 AM
I'm still waiting on the good Christian McArthur folk to challenge the Court of Appeal decision....oh well, it gave Daniel the opportunity to preach his message of the Lord to us all. Praise be to Jaysus.
When did you come back?!

Tony, I was released from custody, following the dropping of a blasphemy charge against me, just last week.
Good man, you're very welcome back. The gaaboard prayer club said a few decades of the rosary for you.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Avondhu star on May 10, 2017, 08:35:28 AM
I'm still waiting on the good Christian McArthur folk to challenge the Court of Appeal decision....oh well, it gave Daniel the opportunity to preach his message of the Lord to us all. Praise be to Jaysus.
When did you come back?!

Tony, I was released from custody, following the dropping of a blasphemy charge against me, just last week.
Or were the charges dropped on condition you attend counselling?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on November 27, 2017, 04:56:12 PM
I see the oul gay cake is back in the news today as more British taxpayers' money is to be wasted on bringing The Supreme Court to Belfast for a week next April to hear the sacred testimony of those decent Christian folks, The MacArthurs. Jesus will sadly not be in attendance as he's having his 40 days off. But, the Lord is on their side. Keep those pesky gays to their vile nightclubs. Praise be.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on November 27, 2017, 06:36:28 PM
Think ill be collectin me pension and this yite will still be goin on
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on November 27, 2017, 08:42:27 PM
I see the oul gay cake is back in the news today as more British taxpayers' money is to be wasted on bringing The Supreme Court to Belfast for a week next April to hear the sacred testimony of those decent Christian folks, The MacArthurs. Jesus will sadly not be in attendance as he's having his 40 days off. But, the Lord is on their side. Keep those pesky gays to their vile nightclubs. Praise be.

A friend of a friend was recently sacked by Ashers, because the owner didn't like his attitude. The person had only worked for Ashers for a couple of months, did his job and never had any complaints.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Tyrdub on November 28, 2017, 09:14:00 AM
I see the oul gay cake is back in the news today as more British taxpayers' money is to be wasted on bringing The Supreme Court to Belfast for a week next April to hear the sacred testimony of those decent Christian folks, The MacArthurs. Jesus will sadly not be in attendance as he's having his 40 days off. But, the Lord is on their side. Keep those pesky gays to their vile nightclubs. Praise be.

A friend of a friend was recently sacked by Ashers, because the owner didn't like his attitude. The person had only worked for Ashers for a couple of months, did his job and never had any complaints.

i know a very good employment solicitor Orior  8) 8)
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: themac_23 on October 10, 2018, 10:57:08 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.

Agreed
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 11:02:06 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 10, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
It was a good ruling and very well expressed.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Aaron Boone on October 10, 2018, 11:55:10 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.
On this message board, your judgement is above the Supreme Court David.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: five points on October 10, 2018, 11:59:03 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: whitey on October 10, 2018, 12:10:52 PM
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.

Agreed-assuming that the customer can access a similar product or service without undue hardship
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: JohnDenver on October 10, 2018, 12:15:38 PM
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.

The Shankill is in West Belfast, so work away  :P
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: five points on October 10, 2018, 12:20:57 PM
The Shankill is in West Belfast, so work away  :P
;D
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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 ?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trueblue1234 on October 10, 2018, 12:36:45 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
.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: GetOverTheBar on October 10, 2018, 12:40:51 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
.

Not to mention the reported 250k fee that the tax payer will pick up on the whole thing.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: dublin7 on October 10, 2018, 12:49:15 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
.

Not to mention the reported 250k fee that the tax payer will pick up on the whole thing.

Final bill will be closer to £750k than £250k. Never had any sympathy myself either for the "alleged victim". The cake store were willing to bake him a cake, it's just the decorations on the cake he wanted they refused. That to me is their personal choice and nothing to do with Mr.Lee's sexual orientation and I don't see how the case even got so far. If it was his own money on the line when he sued the cake shop maybe he would have taken the sensible option instead and just gone to another cake shop!!

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: themac_23 on October 10, 2018, 01:02:12 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.

All joking aside, did you read the ruling?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on October 10, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
Do I remember correctly the fella “targeted” Ashers knowing they wouldn’t make the cake and it would be a big shit storm ?

Sure isn't that exactly what goes on between SF and dup.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on October 10, 2018, 01:23:26 PM
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).
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 10, 2018, 01:26:22 PM
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).


Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: J70 on October 10, 2018, 01:30:03 PM
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??
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 10, 2018, 01:39:09 PM
was meant to be a pic of bert and Ernie, not sure of teh exact one
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: five points on October 10, 2018, 01:40:17 PM

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Gold on October 10, 2018, 01:40:32 PM
Junior's condemnation of the money spent on it..... ;D

Breathtaking
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 10, 2018, 01:46:30 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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 01:48:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 10, 2018, 01:51:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 01:56:16 PM
https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/Lee%20%28Gareth%29%20v%20Ashers%20Baking%20Co%20Ltd%20and%20Colin%20McArthur%20and%20Karen%20McArthur.pdf
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on October 10, 2018, 02:11:20 PM
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"
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on October 10, 2018, 02:14:33 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".
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: five points on October 10, 2018, 02:26:41 PM
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.

It's only ever a particular minority that will ever request a "SUPPORT THE LVF!" cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trileacman on October 10, 2018, 02:32:03 PM
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.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1010/1002126-belfast_gay_cake/

Think you need to read the ruling. I find it hard to challenge that argument.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:32:35 PM
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.

It's only ever a particular minority that will ever request a "SUPPORT THE LVF!" cake.

Again that’s a different scenario. Firstly the protected class in that circumstance is likely either religion or political belief. Then it will be a small minority within that class who would make such a request. This is not such a case. Support for gay marriage from within the LGBT community is considerably higher than support for the LVF within the aforementioned protected classes. With any discrimination law there will always be extreme examples that can be used. The first instant judgement does very well at explaining why the law has to distinguish those extreme examples from the more common examples the law is designed to prevent.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: five points on October 10, 2018, 02:36:49 PM
Again that’s a different scenario. Firstly the protected class in that circumstance is likely either religion or political belief. Then it will be a small minority within that class who would make such a request. This is not such a case. Support for gay marriage from within the LGBT community is considerably higher than support for the LVF within the aforementioned protected classes. With any discrimination law there will always be extreme examples that can be used. The first instant judgement does very well at explaining why the law has to distinguish those extreme examples from the more common examples the law is designed to prevent.

I don't get you. Support for gay marriage is not exclusive to nor synonymous with being gay or a member of the LGBT community.  Gay marriage is clearly a political cause, as Irish unity is. If the logic applied to a particular case does not apply generally, it is likely to be flawed.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 10, 2018, 02:38:19 PM
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.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up. 

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:59:25 PM
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.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up.

No that wouldn’t be discrimination as the reason they are asking for plumbing work is nothing to do with their race, colour sexual orientation etc. Today’s ruling in no way effects that. You could have refused that work yesterday and you can refuse today.

The reason the Ashers case is different is because the support gay marriage logo is almost exclusively only to be requested either by those of the LGBT community or those who’s political beliefs equate to support of gay marriage. Therefore the refusal to provide it couple with having to objection to providing a contrary slogan amounts to discrimination. In my view indirect discrimination in the original view direct discrimination
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 10, 2018, 03:23:15 PM
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.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up.

No that wouldn’t be discrimination as the reason they are asking for plumbing work is nothing to do with their race, colour sexual orientation etc. Today’s ruling in no way effects that. You could have refused that work yesterday and you can refuse today.

The reason the Ashers case is different is because the support gay marriage logo is almost exclusively only to be requested either by those of the LGBT community or those who’s political beliefs equate to support of gay marriage. Therefore the refusal to provide it couple with having to objection to providing a contrary slogan amounts to discrimination. In my view indirect discrimination in the original view direct discrimination

The key bit is that they didn't want to do the work. They were prepared to serve him, but they didn't want to that particular piece of work. That's not discrimination, that's just not wanting to do that piece of work.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on October 10, 2018, 03:24:41 PM
By the way, have Sesame Street declared that bert and ernie are in fact gay? If not, then they should sue yer man for character assassination
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on October 10, 2018, 03:33:26 PM
Is it not the case that they didn’t want to produce and sell a particular product?
That’s not exactly the same as doing work. They are happy to do work for this man, they just aren’t happy to make and sell the requested product to anyone.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jim Bob on October 10, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
Anyone else bored of this story and let out a groan when it appeared in the headlines today knowing that we are going to have to put up with more of it in the next few days?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Armamike on October 10, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
Why did the Supreme Court come to a different conclusion on this one?  Was there any new detail submitted that wasn't available earlier or is it just a different interpretation?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
I’ve read Lady Hale’s judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I’ve confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn’t print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it’s implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don’t necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I’m no expert on convention rights.

I’ll read Lord Mance’s judgement later this evening.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Dire Ear on October 10, 2018, 05:07:12 PM
By the way, have Sesame Street declared that bert and ernie are in fact gay? If not, then they should sue yer man for character assassination
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/bert-ernie-are-gay-couple-sesame-street-writer-claims-n910701
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jim Bob on October 10, 2018, 05:59:56 PM
I’ve read Lady Hale’s judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I’ve confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn’t print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it’s implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don’t necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I’m no expert on convention rights.

I’ll read Lord Mance’s judgement later this evening.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 06:24:59 PM
I’ve read Lady Hale’s judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I’ve confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn’t print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it’s implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don’t necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I’m no expert on convention rights.

I’ll read Lord Mance’s judgement later this evening.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Think how I felt writing it
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 10, 2018, 07:15:43 PM
I always thought this was pretty clear cut.

Refusing to serve someone for being gay is illegal.

Refusing to produce a cake supporting changing a particular law, not illegal.

Am I missing something?

/Jim.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on October 10, 2018, 07:17:40 PM
Do you know what occurred to me after hearing the news today about our good Christian folk?

What a load of crud (insert any other four letter word you choose) religion is.

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Insane Bolt on October 10, 2018, 07:35:35 PM
By the way, have Sesame Street declared that bert and ernie are in fact gay? If not, then they should sue yer man for character assassination

Apparently Bert and Ernie are fully paid up members of the UDP......not the DUP😜
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 10, 2018, 07:56:18 PM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 10, 2018, 08:03:41 PM
I always thought this was pretty clear cut.

Refusing to serve someone for being gay is illegal.

Refusing to produce a cake supporting changing a particular law, not illegal.

Am I missing something?

/Jim.
It's that simple  and now that it has been explained by the supreme court judges you'd wonder why it took so long. I was aware that an individual employee  could conscientiously object to work on such a political/social slogan without censure from the employer but I wasn't too sure about the bakery as a business entity having the civil right to conscientiously object based on the same objections.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: BennyCake on October 10, 2018, 09:04:53 PM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.

Yup, my thinking too
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trileacman on October 10, 2018, 09:14:14 PM
I've studied this a bit further and had another thought.

Say you work for Ashers and someone comes in and orders a "leave the EU" cake, can you, as an employee, refuse to bake the cake at the owners request on the grounds it's objectionable to your political beliefs? If you get fired for your stance do you then have grounds for unfair dismissal?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on October 10, 2018, 09:19:27 PM
I've studied this a bit further and had another thought.

Say you work for Ashers and someone comes in and orders a "leave the EU" cake, can you, as an employee, refuse to bake the cake at the owners request on the grounds it's objectionable to your political beliefs? If you get fired for your stance do you then have grounds for unfair dismissal?
You didn’t adhere to company policy. We tell you what to bake, with our ingredients, on our time and with our name stamped on the box. That’s what we pay you to do. Nothing else.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: tonto1888 on October 10, 2018, 09:27:37 PM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.

What exactly is sordid about it?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 10:02:46 PM
It’s definitely not simple. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts on the basis that they had to wide a definition for dissociable discrimination (which I’ve incorrectly referred to above as indirect discrimination). Particularly in this instance where the Supreme Court held people who are not gay may request such a slogan on a cake in order to support friends or family who are. In which case you can’t say that those wanting such a slogan on a cake will always or almost always be members of protected class. Annoyingly though the court stopped well short of explaining exactly how wide the definition should be using a very narrow definition as an example as opposed to an explanation. To me that begs the question what if Mr Lee has requested a picture of himself with the words “proud to be gay”. It’s not clear to me from the judgement if a refusal by Ashers to make such a cake would have been discriminatory.

This is further compounded by the judgement suggesting the definition of dissociable descrimination may be wider for political opinion but again failing to define its width.

Finally the judgement discussed how Ashers may not have breached discrimination legislation relating to political opinion because of their own convention rights but it remains silent on whether or not the same protections would have been available had they considered discrimination legislation relating to sexual orientation which is made against a different legislative framework.

All in all I have to say I thought it was a particularly interesting case with potentially very wide ramifications.

After reading it I’m still stuck on the point I made near the start of this thread.

Refusing to provide a service to someone simply because they are a member of a protected class is wrong.

Refusing to make or sell a product but of the nature of that product is not. For example halal food.

Refusing to provide a service that is almost exclusively only going to be requested by members of a protected class is still somewhat of a grey area.

 
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 10, 2018, 10:08:22 PM
I've studied this a bit further and had another thought.

Say you work for Ashers and someone comes in and orders a "leave the EU" cake, can you, as an employee, refuse to bake the cake at the owners request on the grounds it's objectionable to your political beliefs? If you get fired for your stance do you then have grounds for unfair dismissal?
You didn’t adhere to company policy. We tell you what to bake, with our ingredients, on our time and with our name stamped on the box. That’s what we pay you to do. Nothing else.
The issue is not as black and white as the simplistic scenario you paint. If the employee is well known to be an avowed remainer and the employer is known to be supporting brexit,  then what's your interpretation? perhaps a deliberate attempt to provoke?
 to humiliate?  that's discrimination, both are enough grounds to reinstate the employee or/and exact damages.

This cake slogan was not just an innocent approach, it was a deliberate attempt to provoke people who were already well known to hold deep beliefs to the contrary.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Franko on October 10, 2018, 10:10:35 PM
It’s definitely not simple. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts on the basis that they had to wide a definition for dissociable discrimination (which I’ve incorrectly referred to above as indirect discrimination). Particularly in this instance where the Supreme Court held people who are not gay may request such a slogan on a cake in order to support friends or family who are. In which case you can’t say that those wanting such a slogan on a cake will always or almost always be members of protected class. Annoyingly though the court stopped well short of explaining exactly how wide the definition should be using a very narrow definition as an example as opposed to an explanation. To me that begs the question what if Mr Lee has requested a picture of himself with the words “proud to be gay”. It’s not clear to me from the judgement if a refusal by Ashers to make such a cake would have been discriminatory.

This is further compounded by the judgement suggesting the definition of dissociable descrimination may be wider for political opinion but again failing to define its width.

Finally the judgement discussed how Ashers may not have breached discrimination legislation relating to political opinion because of their own convention rights but it remains silent on whether or not the same protections would have been available had they considered discrimination legislation relating to sexual orientation which is made against a different legislative framework.

All in all I have to say I thought it was a particularly interesting case with potentially very wide ramifications.

After reading it I’m still stuck on the point I made near the start of this thread.

Refusing to provide a service to someone simply because they are a member of a protected class is wrong.

Refusing to make or sell a product but of the nature of that product is not. For example halal food.

Refusing to provide a service that is almost exclusively only going to be requested by members of a protected class is still somewhat of a grey area.

Not to be picky here but surely halal food would fall squarely into the third category also?

PS.  Big fan of your work on this site David.  Your posts are always well reasoned and fact based, which is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Gold on October 10, 2018, 11:47:51 PM
Do you know what occurred to me after hearing the news today about our good Christian folk?

What a load of crud (insert any other four letter word you choose) religion is.

Just sayin'...

Same

Literally believing in Fairies/Santa/Easter Bunny

Madness
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 11, 2018, 01:25:23 AM
Do you know what occurred to me after hearing the news today about our good Christian folk?

What a load of crud (insert any other four letter word you choose) religion is.

Just sayin'...

Same

Literally believing in Fairies/Santa/Easter Bunny

Madness

While this thread seems to be regarded as an opportunity for some to engage in gratuitous insults of people, this case has nothing to do with God or the belief in same. 

This was a deliberate attempt to get people to endorse the political campaign of their opponents and that is the issue.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: HiMucker on October 11, 2018, 09:01:46 AM
Do you know what occurred to me after hearing the news today about our good Christian folk?

What a load of crud (insert any other four letter word you choose) religion is.

Just sayin'...

Same

Literally believing in Fairies/Santa/Easter Bunny

Madness

While this thread seems to be regarded as an opportunity for some to engage in gratuitous insults of people, this case has nothing to do with God or the belief in same. 

This was a deliberate attempt to get people to endorse the political campaign of their opponents and that is the issue.
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: tonto1888 on October 11, 2018, 09:03:41 AM
Do you know what occurred to me after hearing the news today about our good Christian folk?

What a load of crud (insert any other four letter word you choose) religion is.

Just sayin'...

Same

Literally believing in Fairies/Santa/Easter Bunny

Madness

While this thread seems to be regarded as an opportunity for some to engage in gratuitous insults of people, this case has nothing to do with God or the belief in same. 

This was a deliberate attempt to get people to endorse the political campaign of their opponents and that is the issue.
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....

Took the words out of my mouth
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnnycool on October 11, 2018, 09:09:20 AM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.

But is the converse of that also true?

We use a print company that also prints leaflets for the DUP.

Am I to discern from the fact that because they print DUP party literature that they also have that political mindset and I should pull my business from them in protest?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: ardtole on October 11, 2018, 09:23:41 AM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.

But is the converse of that also true?

We use a print company that also prints leaflets for the DUP.

Am I to discern from the fact that because they print DUP party literature that they also have that political mindset and I should pull my business from them in protest?

The majority of businesses are focused solely on profit, and run their businesses accordingly. Ashes would be an exception but personally I think they should have the right to refuse a job because it is at odds with their beliefs.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: johnnycool on October 11, 2018, 09:52:59 AM
Proper order. Someone should not expect others to subscribe to their sordid political campaigns. If this case had not rightly been thrown out you would have had people going to Larne getting Saor Éire cakes and  others going to Carrickmore looking for Ulster is British cakes.

But is the converse of that also true?

We use a print company that also prints leaflets for the DUP.

Am I to discern from the fact that because they print DUP party literature that they also have that political mindset and I should pull my business from them in protest?

The majority of businesses are focused solely on profit, and run their businesses accordingly. Ashes would be an exception but personally I think they should have the right to refuse a job because it is at odds with their beliefs.

How am I meant to know that though?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on October 11, 2018, 10:02:14 AM
Any business has the right to refuse to do a bespoke job. It happens all the time. Its not discrimination*.

No business has the right to refuse someone an existing item based on that person's creed or sexual orientation.


Pretty straightforward to me - not at all surprised that the legal system seen fit to line their pockets to the tune of >£500k in meandering to that conclusion.



*Here, Charles Hurst - I want a new ferrari that is painted black with pink dots for 20p. What do you mean you aren't going to do that? DISCRIMINATION!!!! Whats the equality commission's number?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 11, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: tonto1888 on October 11, 2018, 11:49:47 AM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.

So gay marriage undermines marriage? I assume you think divorce is sordid too
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 11, 2018, 11:57:19 AM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.

If you think two people of the same sex getting married undermine's Marriage then you have no understanding of what Marriage is and where the concept of Marriage came from.
Before we can go forward, you must look back.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: michaelg on October 11, 2018, 12:10:45 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 11, 2018, 12:15:28 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?

Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Maiden1 on October 11, 2018, 12:28:27 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?

Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
The mother took the order, the son overruled her later.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: HiMucker on October 11, 2018, 12:31:10 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth
I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?

Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
Yeah because that's the same thing  ::) Tell me is there a significant number of people hiding in the closet who want to get off with their son/mother/father/daughter? Are they meeting up in underground nightclubs with other mother and son couples? What part of Armagh are you from  ;D. Here do us all a favour and stick your mask back on and spare us your homophobic bile dressed up as pseudo religious waffle.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: HiMucker on October 11, 2018, 12:33:10 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?

Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
The mother took the order, the son overruled her later.
Your giving him too much credit. That's not what he is referring to. If only.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: manfromdelmonte on October 11, 2018, 12:33:40 PM
I thought it hilarious that the company involved actually thanked god after the ruling

as if a celestial dictator had anything to do with a point of law!
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 11, 2018, 12:45:05 PM
Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
Yeah because that's the same thing  ::) Tell me is there a significant number of people hiding in the closet who want to get off with their son/mother/father/daughter? Are they meeting up in underground nightclubs with other mother and son couples? What part of Armagh are you from  ;D.

There are some, the exact number is not the point. 

Quote
Here do us all a favour and stick your mask back on and spare us your homophobic bile dressed up as pseudo religious waffle.

Ah yes, the usual resort to abuse, a clear sign that your argument does not stand on its own merit.
Incidentally, which point did I make that was "pseudo religious"?

Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: HiMucker on October 11, 2018, 12:54:37 PM
You think being gay is immoral. There is no point beating around the bush, pardon the pun. I don't think that sort of view deserves the credibility of an indepth debate, others can knock themselves out. I was hardly abusive, I called your views for what they are.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Orior on October 11, 2018, 01:42:33 PM
I thought it hilarious that the company involved actually thanked god after the ruling

as if a celestial dictator had anything to do with a point of law!

I found that quite funny too. God only sides with the ones that pay their Tithes, and doesn't care too much for sinners.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: trailer on October 11, 2018, 02:20:19 PM
Why deny it to someone  and their mother?
Yeah because that's the same thing  ::) Tell me is there a significant number of people hiding in the closet who want to get off with their son/mother/father/daughter? Are they meeting up in underground nightclubs with other mother and son couples? What part of Armagh are you from  ;D.

There are some, the exact number is not the point. 

Quote
Here do us all a favour and stick your mask back on and spare us your homophobic bile dressed up as pseudo religious waffle.

Ah yes, the usual resort to abuse, a clear sign that your argument does not stand on its own merit.
Incidentally, which point did I make that was "pseudo religious"?

Wow. This incestuous line is a smokescreen.
Incest is unlawful as it can lead to defects in reproduction and is dangerous for the children. This is widely known.
Underage sex or marriage is also outlawed as one or both of the parties involved may not be of a mature age to make and informed decision.
None of these can be translated to reason for the banning of gay marriage.

Do you know where the concept of marriage came from? Do you understand the concept? And it's background? And why it is still used today?
You are terribly vocal on a subject you seem to be so poorly informed on. Very sad.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: tonto1888 on October 11, 2018, 02:49:50 PM
A sordid campaign according to you. You let the mask slip there a bit, but sure nothing to do with God or your beliefs....


Took the words out of my mouth

I believe that a campaign to undermine marriage, a fundamental building block of human society, is sordid.
God didn't tell me that.
If it's a fundamental building block of human society, why deny it to gay couples?

Why deny it to someone  and their mother?

You like  to deflect don’t you.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: armaghniac on October 11, 2018, 03:15:34 PM
You think being gay is immoral. There is no point beating around the bush, pardon the pun. I don't think that sort of view deserves the credibility of an indepth debate, others can knock themselves out. I was hardly abusive, I called your views for what they are.

No doubt with a similar lack of evidence I can say that you are motivated by the devil himself.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 11, 2018, 08:50:17 PM
Any business has the right to refuse to do a bespoke job. It happens all the time. Its not discrimination*.

No business has the right to refuse someone an existing item based on that person's creed or sexual orientation.


Pretty straightforward to me - not at all surprised that the legal system seen fit to line their pockets to the tune of >£500k in meandering to that conclusion.



*Here, Charles Hurst - I want a new ferrari that is painted black with pink dots for 20p. What do you mean you aren't going to do that? DISCRIMINATION!!!! Whats the equality commission's number?

Not the conclusion they arrived at though.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 11, 2018, 10:51:40 PM
Any business has the right to refuse to do a bespoke job. It happens all the time. Its not discrimination*.

No business has the right to refuse someone an existing item based on that person's creed or sexual orientation.


Pretty straightforward to me - not at all surprised that the legal system seen fit to line their pockets to the tune of >£500k in meandering to that conclusion.



*Here, Charles Hurst - I want a new ferrari that is painted black with pink dots for 20p. What do you mean you aren't going to do that? DISCRIMINATION!!!! Whats the equality commission's number?

Not the conclusion they arrived at though.
However its a close enough (flexible) interpretation of the 5 judges' opinion as to not worth an objection.
Belfast telegraph
"Ashers bakery, did not discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation, but refused his order because of their deeply held objection to the message."
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 12:18:34 AM
Yes but if you read the judgement the ratio is more clearly the lower court erred on how widely they interpreted dissociable discrimination. On the facts of this case Mr Lee was not discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality or political opinion.

It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job and such an interpretation is not close enough to describe current anti discrimination law.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on October 12, 2018, 09:21:02 AM
Yes but if you read the judgement the ratio is more clearly the lower court erred on how widely they interpreted dissociable discrimination. On the facts of this case Mr Lee was not discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality or political opinion.

It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job and such an interpretation is not close enough to describe current anti discrimination law.

Could you explain what "dissociable discrimination" means? Thanks in advance
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on October 12, 2018, 09:46:12 AM
Not the conclusion they arrived at though.

<sigh> I know.

Why make a statement that makes things clear and obvious to all when there is further money to be gleamed from the taxpayer?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: RadioGAAGAA on October 12, 2018, 09:51:38 AM
It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job

Any business DOES have the right to refuse to do a bespoke job! It happens every day across the world.

How the court didn't just say that this is an instance of that I don't know. Instead they've left things vague and already I see a bad interpretation of it being applied in an attempt at reciprocity.



[I'm kinda amazed that you are even suggesting that any customer can demand a business perform a dedicated/bespoke piece of work for them - even if that business has no wish to perform the work.]
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 08:45:18 PM
Yes but if you read the judgement the ratio is more clearly the lower court erred on how widely they interpreted dissociable discrimination. On the facts of this case Mr Lee was not discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality or political opinion.

It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job and such an interpretation is not close enough to describe current anti discrimination law.

Could you explain what "dissociable discrimination" means? Thanks in advance

A discrimination claim can only be brought on certain protected characteristics such as age sex, sexual orientation etc. Dissociable discrimination is when the discrimination is not directly on one of those characteristics but is on some other ground where’s its impact is so extreme that it May as well be on one of those characteristics.

The example the Supreme Court gave was when a swimming pool discriminated on the basis of whether the customer was eligible for state pension or not. Being eligible for state pension is not a protected characteristic per se however the impact was such that it de facto amounted to age and sex discrimination on the basis that only over 60 year old women and only over 65 year old men were being discriminated against.

Originally the courts here held that support for gay marriage was dissociable from a persons sexuality and political beliefs on the basis that realistically the only people who would want a cake with a support gay marriage message would be those of certain sexualities and/or political beliefs.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 09:04:21 PM
It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job

Any business DOES have the right to refuse to do a bespoke job! It happens every day across the world.

How the court didn't just say that this is an instance of that I don't know. Instead they've left things vague and already I see a bad interpretation of it being applied in an attempt at reciprocity.



[I'm kinda amazed that you are even suggesting that any customer can demand a business perform a dedicated/bespoke piece of work for them - even if that business has no wish to perform the work.]

I’m not suggesting a customer can demand a business perform a dedicated bespoke piece of work what I am saying and what the Supreme Court have said is that if they are to turn down work they can not do so in such a way as amount to discrimination. For example in one of your earlier examples you mention about making a car at a ludicrously cheap amount. A business could refuse to do that for everyone on the basis of it not being cost effective. They could however not agree to do it for me but refuse to do for someone else on the basis of their skin colour.

Similarly they couldn’t refuse to do it because and I just use the example the Supreme Court did, for me but agree to do it for my father on the basis he is eligible for state pension and I am not. That would be dissociable discrimination.

What would have been interesting is whether or not Ashers would have been discriminating against Mr Lee had he asked for a photo of himself and the message “proud to be gay” and Ashers refused that.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on October 12, 2018, 09:08:36 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 09:16:43 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Olly on October 12, 2018, 09:30:42 PM
I'm shocked by this decision. If I went into a Spar shop and said to the cashier that I would like a gay magazine they would get it for me no questions asked and take my £4.99. Why is the cake shop being different? You often find that people who don't like homosexuals are usually half inclined to like them secretly. It's like people who hate other things like the Chinese or vinegar. They are usually eating Chineses or eat products with loads of vinegar on them naturally like beetroot or pot noodles.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: hardstation on October 12, 2018, 09:42:46 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.
I don’t really follow. Someone could send their ma down to order it if they hadn’t the time. Ashers would refuse her too.
I don’t see how there could ever be a situation whereby we can be certain that only gay people would order a particular cake.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: macdanger2 on October 12, 2018, 09:44:54 PM
Yes but if you read the judgement the ratio is more clearly the lower court erred on how widely they interpreted dissociable discrimination. On the facts of this case Mr Lee was not discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality or political opinion.

It stopped well short of saying any business has the right to refuse a bespoke job and such an interpretation is not close enough to describe current anti discrimination law.

Could you explain what "dissociable discrimination" means? Thanks in advance

A discrimination claim can only be brought on certain protected characteristics such as age sex, sexual orientation etc. Dissociable discrimination is when the discrimination is not directly on one of those characteristics but is on some other ground where’s its impact is so extreme that it May as well be on one of those characteristics.

The example the Supreme Court gave was when a swimming pool discriminated on the basis of whether the customer was eligible for state pension or not. Being eligible for state pension is not a protected characteristic per se however the impact was such that it de facto amounted to age and sex discrimination on the basis that only over 60 year old women and only over 65 year old men were being discriminated against.

Originally the courts here held that support for gay marriage was dissociable from a persons sexuality and political beliefs on the basis that realistically the only people who would want a cake with a support gay marriage message would be those of certain sexualities and/or political beliefs.

Cheers
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 12, 2018, 10:38:03 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.
That still falls under  "obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed" as a matter of religious conscience.
Profoundly being the key word.
And it also still falls under this peculiar form of blatant cynical entrapment.



Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 10:52:33 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.
That still falls under  "obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed" as a matter of religious conscience.
Profoundly being the key word.
And it also still falls under this peculiar form of blatant cynical entrapment.

Oh I don’t disagree about this example being entrapment.

On your other point the Supreme Court seemed to me to suggest that they considered religious consciousness against a background of discrimination on the basis of political opinion and how the owners own rights to free expression of their genuinely held beliefs could and should be balanced in that context. They seemed to draw a distinction though at least by my reading in so far as they seemed to make no comment on what may have occurred had this to be discrimination based on sexual orientation and there is a clear difference between the two. One is an inherent charatistic of a person whilst the other is acquirred. Not saying it necessarily would have made a difference but I got the impression reading the judgement that it may have but having reached the decision no dissociable discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation it didn’t arise in this case and courts try to never make decisions they don’t have too.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: omaghjoe on October 12, 2018, 10:56:44 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.

Sounds more like a cake lads would have done for a gag than anything a gay person would request.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 10:58:59 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.
I don’t really follow. Someone could send their ma down to order it if they hadn’t the time. Ashers would refuse her too.
I don’t see how there could ever be a situation whereby we can be certain that only gay people would order a particular cake.

There will always be extreme examples that could be used to argue against dissociable discrimination Which is why I wonder just how wide is discrimination. The first two courts definition was rejected as being too wide but no real guidance was given by the Supreme Court how wide it actually is.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 12, 2018, 11:01:04 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.

Sounds more like a cake lads would have done for a gag than anything a gay person would request.

Perhaps it’s a poor example. The point I’m trying to make is I wonder now how wide dissociable discrimination is. The Supreme Court accepts it does exist and is outlawed by anti discrimination law but I’m not sure how much protection it affords.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: Main Street on October 13, 2018, 11:07:34 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.

Sounds more like a cake lads would have done for a gag than anything a gay person would request.

Perhaps it’s a poor example. The point I’m trying to make is I wonder now how wide dissociable discrimination is. The Supreme Court accepts it does exist and is outlawed by anti discrimination law but I’m not sure how much protection it affords.
in this case the supreme court came to  a good judgement, not just good but very good. But is it a judgement for the ages? I don't think so. The  dependency that the british legal system puts  on precedence is not appropriate when the law has to get involved with the shifting sands of modern day social interaction.
Title: Re: Ashers cake controversy.
Post by: David McKeown on October 14, 2018, 09:29:02 PM
Would Ashers make a cake with Mr Lee’s picture and “Proud to be gay” for anyone?

That’s why I think it would be interesting. Realistically it would be a lot harder to suggest that someone who isn’t gay would ever request a cake like that. The Supreme Court judgement to me isn’t clear whether this example would be dissociable discrimination.

Sounds more like a cake lads would have done for a gag than anything a gay person would request.

Perhaps it’s a poor example. The point I’m trying to make is I wonder now how wide dissociable discrimination is. The Supreme Court accepts it does exist and is outlawed by anti discrimination law but I’m not sure how much protection it affords.
in this case the supreme court came to  a good judgement, not just good but very good. But is it a judgement for the ages? I don't think so. The  dependency that the british legal system puts  on precedence is not appropriate when the law has to get involved with the shifting sands of modern day social interaction.

I foresee an introduction to jurisprudence essay question here. Do what extent do judges make the law?

I’ve no issue with the judgement in this case. I think it’s a very difficult issue and I’ve been swayed both ways as the judgements have issued and I can see merit in both sides of the coin.