Common sense prevails...

archangel said:
This had been an undoing dispute in Northern Ireland over this last year and today common sense prevails...this sort of discrimination beds nipped in the bud and I believe the court mass the right decision by stating that the company was not exempt from the law. I do think that you can hold a high principle as an individual but when in business you just cannot pick and choose. Just to mention I am neither religious not gay...

'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239
Click to expand...

I disagree with the ruling. I don't think you should be forced to make something that you are offended by. If I went in there and wanted a cake made with a nude model picture on it and they said no what would be wrong with that? FWIW I believe that religion has too much freedom from the law.
 
archangel said:
I believe is that if it is promoting terrorism, hate crimes or discriminatory, you may be prosecuted and as stated previously that UDA/IRA asking other groups are illegal prescribed groups and therefore anyone runs the risk of prosecution for promotion and as for refusing to do a cake,I believe you would be protected from discrimination laws due to the status of prescribed organisations......but this is off on a tangent.....at the end of the day it was an ordinary bloke, who happened to be gay, having his contract of sale retracted due to his sexual preference, discrimination...simples :D
Click to expand...

No it wasn't.
It was a gay bloke ....an avid activist...looking for someone to sue.
 
I think its damned bloody crazy TBH,
The baker is in business to make money, take it. This guys money is the same colour as everyone else's.
I've worked for a few gits in my time, didn't stop me taking their money ;)

The gay guy, I wonder if he deliberately sort out a "Christian baker"
(were the bakers thoughts well known on the subject of single sex relationships?)
Just to promote gay pride, or make a few quid?

Which ever side you are looking at this from, its another case of PC gone made!
 
Didn't Northern Ireland vote against legalising same sex marriage recently? That makes it illegal, so the bakers were asked to promote something that's illegal on a cake.
Are they going to sue the Northern Irish assembly for discrimination? Somehow I don't think so.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Didn't Northern Ireland vote against legalising same sex marriage recently? That makes it illegal, so the bakers were asked to promote something that's illegal on a cake.
Are they going to sue the Northern Irish assembly for discrimination? Somehow I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You can legally marry the same sex in Northern Ireland....I do believe the first UK gay marriage was in Northern Ireland..in 2005.
Still illegal in southern Ireland but will be voted on shortly...

Cobra said:
I think its damned bloody crazy TBH,
The baker is in business to make money, take it. This guys money is the same colour as everyone else's.
I've worked for a few gits in my time, didn't stop me taking their money ;)

The gay guy, I wonder if he deliberately sort out a "Christian baker"
(were the bakers thoughts well known on the subject of single sex relationships?)
Just to promote gay pride, or make a few quid?



Which ever side you are looking at this from, its another case of PC gone made!
Click to expand...

He donated the compensation to charity...
 
Last edited:
archangel said:
He donated the compensation to charity...
Click to expand...
I must admit I didn't read the link, just what I heard on the news earlier,
I bet I was a "gay pride" type charity?
 
archangel said:
You can legally marry the same sex in Northern Ireland....I do believe the first UK gay marriage was in Northern Ireland..in 2005.
Still illegal in southern Ireland but will be voted on shortly...



He donated the compensation to charity...
Click to expand...

You are confusing civil partnership with same sex marriage. Northern Ireland is the only county in the UK not to pass a bill allowing same sex marriage.
 
nilagin said:
I wouldn't be on the customers side. Why should someone have to do something that is against their beliefs. Surely that is discriminating against the persons beliefs.
Click to expand...
Because it's the law?

It's fairly straightforward. If you're in business, there are laws you have to adhere to. Feel free to be a bigot, but break the law in doing so and expect to be in trouble.
 
Phil V said:
Because it's the law?

It's fairly straightforward. If you're in business, there are laws you have to adhere to. Feel free to be a bigot, but break the law in doing so and expect to be in trouble.
Click to expand...

True if you break the law then you pay the price, but (I believe) what is being discussed here is whether the law is an ass in this case. It appears to be a bit of a test case as there usually is to sort things for future reference.
 
Big Andy said:
True if you break the law then you pay the price, but (I believe) what is being discussed here is whether the law is an ass in this case. It appears to be a bit of a test case as there usually is to sort things for future reference.
Click to expand...
Well in that case...

The law protects certain sections of society who have suffered discrimination historically. The latest category being the LGBT community.

Anyone who sees that as unreasonable IMHO isn't just ignorant of the law, they're nob heads.
 
Phil V said:
Well in that case...

The law protects certain sections of society who have suffered discrimination historically. The latest category being the LGBT community.

Anyone who sees that as unreasonable IMHO isn't just ignorant of the law, they're nob heads.
Click to expand...

I've no problem with same sex sex or same sex marriage etc.
What I have a problem with is them bleating about wanting to be treated "like everyone else", whilst insisting on retaining their own fronts such as the GPA, gay pride marches etc.
If someone wanted to start a trade association strictly for heterosexual people, and exclude anyone non hetero....they'd get slaughtered.
 
viv1969 said:
I've no problem with same sex sex or same sex marriage etc.
What I have a problem with is them bleating about wanting to be treated "like everyone else", whilst insisting on retaining their own fronts such as the GPA, gay pride marches etc.
If someone wanted to start a trade association strictly for heterosexual people, and exclude anyone non hetero....they'd get slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Do the GPA restrict their membership to just other gays? I don't know but would think not.
 
hellogreg said:
They'll be trying to change the law next ....
Click to expand...
They're way ahead of you.

DUP are calling for a 'conscience clause' for people of faith.

'Cos, obviously, you can't have a moral conviction without God. *facepalm*
 
Llamaman said:
They're way ahead of you.

DUP are calling for a 'conscience clause' for people of faith.

'Cos, obviously, you can't have a moral conviction without God. *facepalm*
Click to expand...


If the conscience of faith clause were to be implemented the we would have every crack pot extremist group claiming all sorts of rights, actions and attacking us from every angle...
 
viv1969 said:
If someone wanted to start a trade association strictly for heterosexual people, and exclude anyone non hetero....they'd get slaughtered.
Click to expand...
I believe it's called the CoE General Synod?

(Or any other organised religion)
 
Llamaman said:
I believe it's called the CoE General Synod?

(Or any other organised religion)
Click to expand...

Then think again.
There are gay c of e vicars...even bishops.
Openly gay....and yes they even have their own association.
 
viv1969 said:
Then think again.
There are gay c of e vicars...even bishops.
Openly gay....and yes they even have their own association.
Click to expand...


Can I ask for the name of the association? as the only information that I can find only highlights that there may be up to ten percent of the clergy are invisible to the church as closet LGBT... I find this all interesting, as my brother in law is a minister of religion, and he is an extreme right wing believer with a preferential dislike to anyone who is non conformant to his beliefs and morals and that of his church...as I have stated before I love people watching and issues like this just enhance my desire to understand the human race...
 
SarahLee said:
Hmmmmm . . . not sure that we know the full story either, but on the basis of what's in that report it makes me slightly uncomfortable TBH.

OK, it's really easy to justify the decision in this particular instance since the vast majority of us would morally side with the "customer".
But it's more about the precedent that's being set.

From what I can gather from the article, the discrimination wasn't against the customer in any personal way. i.e. They didn't refuse to serve him, which IMO would be a completely different scenario.
They just declined to write a particular message on a cake.
So to take it a step further, what if this bakery had refused to decorate a cake with an anti-religious slogan?
Would everyone still feel the same way? I'm actually anti-religion myself, but I wouldn't want anybody with deep religious convictions to be forced into doing that.
Or would a bakery be classed as age-ist if they refused to decorate an 80th birthday cake on the grounds that they specialised in children's and baby's cakes only?
Click to expand...
Exactly, I have some sympathy for them that they feel that by writing that message they would go one step too far and participate. The happy wedded couple could have applied common sense and do the message themselves or go elsewhere and still have the cake.

I bet the baker also wouldn't write profanities on a cake and several other categories.

I appreciate what the law is, I think it is right that the law is being upheld. And I'm confident that that was the only criteria for the judge to test against.

Anything else would be peoples own conjecture.
 
Consider the following scenarios outlined by a leading human rights QC, Aidan O'Neill, now that this precedent has been set and tell me again that common sense has prevailed
  • A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed
  • An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days
  • A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film
  • A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism
  • A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”
  • A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised
 
Oh dear what a cock up ,or is that a couple of cocks up ,perhaps the baker took umbridge at having a 15 inch black dildo as a centre.piece .i sometimes wonder at the silly things that wind people up on here .and this is definetly near the top of the list .
It's all to do with someone getting there agenda across and setting a precedent in law ,simples init
 
Justso said:
Consider the following scenarios outlined by a leading human rights QC, Aidan O'Neill, now that this precedent has been set and tell me again that common sense has prevailed
  • A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed
  • An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days
  • A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film
  • A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism
  • A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”
  • A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised
Click to expand...

The above examples as you have stated are examples of legal opinion by Aidan O'Neill QC and not actually discrimination as seen in the eyes of the law. If each scenario was to happen then individual cases would need to be heard. The bakery actually discriminated by breach of contract by accepting the order in the first place and then refusing to complete due to religious and moral belief, which is entirely different than any of the scenarios. All businesses have the right to enter into contact with who they wish to do business with, but once you have agreed terms, it is then a legal and binding agreement and this is how the bakery broke the law.
 
viv1969 said:
I've no problem with same sex sex or same sex marriage etc.
What I have a problem with is them bleating about wanting to be treated "like everyone else", whilst insisting on retaining their own fronts such as the GPA, gay pride marches etc.
If someone wanted to start a trade association strictly for heterosexual people, and exclude anyone non hetero....they'd get slaughtered.
Click to expand...
That's not quite how it is though is it? They're not asking to be treated "like everyone else", they're asking for equality, and this case, and similar attitudes displayed here show that there's a long way to go before some people will just let them get on with their lives.

That's the reason they still feel the need to maintain GPA etc.
 
archangel said:
The above examples as you have stated are examples of legal opinion by Aidan O'Neill QC and not actually discrimination as seen in the eyes of the law. If each scenario was to happen then individual cases would need to be heard. The bakery actually discriminated by breach of contract by accepting the order in the first place and then refusing to complete due to religious and moral belief, which is entirely different than any of the scenarios. All businesses have the right to enter into contact with who they wish to do business with, but once you have agreed terms, it is then a legal and binding agreement and this is how the bakery broke the law.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting point you raised, I didn't appreciate that the case wasn't actually between two people, but between the Ashers Baking Company and Christopher Lee instead....I never appreciated that point, that to me alone puts a different light on this....I would still really like to read the actual case once it goes online...And in that context, surely 'they' aren't Ashers the company....
 
dejongj said:
It is an interesting point you raised, I didn't appreciate that the case wasn't actually between two people, but between the Ashers Baking Company and Christopher Lee instead....I never appreciated that point, that to me alone puts a different light on this....I would still really like to read the actual case once it goes online...And in that context, surely 'they' aren't Ashers the company....
Click to expand...

I think some confusion from the case, is that it portrayed in the media as a family run Christian bakery, with the highlight on "family", but it is actually a large limited company with a net worth of over 1.2 million..which has Christian directors....and the case was actually brought before the courts by the equality commission and not the individual. The full case will definitely make interesting reading...
 
Exactly, it didn't register with me until you posted that and I do think it makes a material difference to the conversation/discussion and I can totally understand the judgement against the backdrop of the law. It does make the statement of common sense prevailing even more ridiculous as it has nothing to do with that.
 
dejongj said:
Exactly, it didn't register with me until you posted that and I do think it makes a material difference to the conversation/discussion and I can totally understand the judgement against the backdrop of the law. It does make the statement of common sense prevailing even more ridiculous as it has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

I must admit my title of "common sense prevails" may in the wrong context and this may have caused some of the replies so far.....
 
Phil V said:
The law protects certain sections of society who have suffered discrimination historically. The latest category being the LGBT community.
Click to expand...
I regularly eat a bacon, lettuce and tomato sarnie and have never felt discriminated against. :thinking:

;)
 
Last edited:
archangel said:
I think some confusion from the case, is that it portrayed in the media as a family run Christian bakery, with the highlight on "family", but it is actually a large limited company with a net worth of over 1.2 million..which has Christian directors....
Click to expand...
that certainly puts a different slant on the whole thing, and quite possibly the motive ;-)
 
Justso said:
Consider the following scenarios outlined by a leading human rights QC, Aidan O'Neill, now that this precedent has been set and tell me again that common sense has prevailed
  • A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed
  • An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days
  • A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film
  • A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism
  • A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”
  • A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised
Click to expand...

Kinda thing you'd see on topgear, I would watch
 
Cobra said:
that certainly puts a different slant on the whole thing, and quite possibly the motive ;-)
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the judge decided and he was correct, the media have portrayed the incident poorly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top