Gay Cake Controversy!

gmisk

sightband wrote: »

I’ve ignored this case all together so apologies if it has already been mentioned...but what exactly was the message on the cake or what was it supposed to look like? I think this is relevant as if it was as simple as “happy anniversary to Jim and Barry” then bake and ice cake and who gives a sh*t, but if it was a big sponge cake shaped like a pair of arse cheeks with a big veiny flute going up into it then fair enough, wouldn’t be too thrilled about getting that request either and refusing to do it should be at the bakers discretion.

Its the first thing that comes up when you google gay cake northern ireland.
Its not exactly the most offensive and out there cake I have ever seen

gmisk

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Would love to know who is backing him and funding him in this witch hunt. !

I would have thought it was the NI Equality Commission?


Who is backing Ashers?

Zubeneschamali

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Abortion was illegal until recently, so presumably the baker couldn't be forced to make the cake then.

This has nothing and never had anything to do with gay marriage being legal or illegal.

The ruling (now overruled) was that refusing to make a "Support Gay Marriage" cake was indirect discrimination against a protected group, because only someone in that group is likely to order such a cake.

So now it is cool to refuse to make cakes with messages because you disagree with the message, even if that is indirect discrimination on the grounds of colour, religion, sexuality, gender etc.

"Support Mixed Marriage!" cakes, nope, I don't agree with the message, "Free Nelson Mandela!" , nope, too uppity for me, "Pride" and a rainbow, feck right off, "Congratulations on your First Communion", no pope here.

irishproduce

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, a cake with two little brides on top is clearly a message supporting gay marriage, and the Ashers now have carte blanche to refuse any message cake if they object to the message, nothing to do with the legality of the message.

So no more cakes in Irish (not that I'm prejudiced against Taigs, Unionists can't order cakes as gaeilge either), no cakes in any foreign language (not that I'm against immigrants), No cakes with mixed race couples on top (not that I am racially biased), no cakes with messages for Holy Communion or Confirmation (not that I hate Catholics, but my interpretation of the Bible says), no knacker cakes, in fact, feck off the lot of ye unless the message agrees with my narrow reading of the KJV bible.

Good for you but you won't make much money with that attitude to making cakes.
Which incidentally, was something that concerned the Ashers. They explicitly disagreed with the very narrow political message of supporting Gay Marriage which as it stands, is an aspiration of some.
Mixed relations is not an aspiration - it is not political.
Gay marriage is thought.
Fair play to Ashers

suicide_circus

AllForIt wrote: »

So it's all down to your personal opinion and should not be regulated in law other than the law saying there is no rules when it comes to whatever strongly held opinion you have. Hmm.

I'm blessed with the mental capacity to able to separate a human person from a concept, be in social/political/religious/economic.

tonycascarino

Happy for the bakers to have won, it was common sense afterall. Especially delighted to see the PC brigade get another much deserved kick in the nuts.

Rjd2

Peter Tatchall who has spent his life campaigning for gay rights everywhere backed this decision citing free speech and I would agree with him.


http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/ashers-gay-cake-verdict-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

“Businesses can now lawfully refuse a customer’s request to emblazon a political message if they have a conscientious objection to it. This includes the right to refuse messages that are sexist, xenophobic or anti-gay, which is a good thing.

“Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

“The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.

“Ashers did not discriminate against the customer, Gareth Lee, because he was gay. They objected to the message he wanted on the cake: Support gay marriage.’

“Discrimination against LGBT people is wrong. But in a free society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas that they disagree with. I am glad the court upheld this important liberal principle.

“If the original judgement against Ashers had been upheld it would have meant that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be forced to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial. It could have also encouraged far right extremists to demand that bakers and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim opinions.

“That would have set a dangerous, authoritarian precedent that could have been open to serious abuse.

“Discrimination against people should be illegal but not discrimination against ideas and opinions,” said Mr Tatchell.

Zubeneschamali

irishproduce wrote: »

Good for you but you won't make much money with that attitude to making cakes.

This is Northern Ireland we are talking about, and these folks have already publicly announced they are a "Christian bakery", IDing the community they serve very clearly - if they were allowed say "No Taigs" they would get more business, not less.

Den14

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Would love to know who is backing him and funding him in this witch hunt. !

George Soros

gozunda

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Who in the name of God cake has to pay for it all? Both sides surely must have racked up insane amounts in legal bills.

Afaik the 'Christian' bakery legal expenses are being funded by a pro Christian group.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is Northern Ireland we are talking about, and these folks have already publicly announced they are a "Christian bakery", IDing the community they serve very clearly - if they were allowed say "No Taigs" they would get more business, not less.

They never announced or advertised their Christian principles; they have only become publicly known because of this case. There have been some rather snide suggestions on Boards that Lee only placed the order with them because he knew it would be refused, but in fact from the evidence in the case Lee did not know that the bakers were Christians until several days after he placed his order, when they declined it and said why, and similarly they did not know that he was gay until he said so in the pleadings in the proceedings.

gozunda

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't agree with the beliefs of the shop owner, but they should have the right to refuse to make a cake with a message they disagree with.
If I opened a cake shop, I would certainly refuse to bake a cake with a White Power, Neo-Nazi, Racist, etc slogan. I should have the right to refuse to make the cake based on it's message, not on the fact that the person ordering the cake was a Neo-Nazi or racist or whatever.That's what this ruling has said, and in all fairness, it is simple common sense.

Just out of interest what part of the bible has the references to White Power and Nazis etc? I though we were dealing with Christian teachings and biblical prohibitions in a bakery no?


Most of that type of stuff you mentioned is included under incitement to hatred laws afaik. So your have no problem problem there anyway. Interestingly the message asked for doesn't ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

nullzero

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Would love to know who is backing him and funding him in this witch hunt. !

I'm sure George Soros has better things to be doing before you say anything...

Edit, someone beat me to it.

Edgware

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Maybe not

The fella involved Gareth Lee is thinking of appealing to Europe

"Lee said he would be considering his options, which could involve appealing to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

gmisk

Edgware wrote: »

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

Yeah screw em! It's working out brilliantly so far for the UK isn't it!... Oh wait...

Spook_ie

sightband wrote: »

I’ve ignored this case all together so apologies if it has already been mentioned...but what exactly was the message on the cake or what was it supposed to look like? I think this is relevant as if it was as simple as “happy anniversary to Jim and Barry” then bake and ice cake and who gives a sh*t, but if it was a big sponge cake shaped like a pair of arse cheeks with a big veiny flute going up into it then fair enough, wouldn’t be too thrilled about getting that request either and refusing to do it should be at the bakers discretion.

https://news.sky.com/story/christian-bakers-win-gay-cake-supreme-court-fight-11522566

There's a piccy of ( presumably ) the cake from a different bakery

Spook_ie

Simple story over blown, it WASN'T a Wedding cake for a gay or any other type of wedding, it was a political message on a cake.

Peregrinus

Edgware wrote: »

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

You're sayin that British people are so incredibly stupid that even after a lengthy public campaign they voted in the belief that leaving the European Union would affect in any way at all the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, neither of which have anything to do with the EU?

Hoboo

£36 for the cake. According to reports, 10,000 times that in costs. He targeted that shop knowing it would refuse, just to make a point. Hope it was worth it.

Edgware

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're sayin that British people are so incredibly stupid that even after a lengthy public campaign they voted in the belief that leaving the European Union would affect in any way at all the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, neither of which have anything to do with the EU?

They can tell E.C.H.R. to **** off as well while they are at it

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

They never announced or advertised their Christian principles; they have only become publicly known because of this case.

Yes, that's what I mean - their defense is that they are a Christian bakery, they identified with the Protestant community as part of the publicity surrounding the case, and I would not be at all surprised if their business went up when that community learned that they were a) "one of us" and b) "standing up for us"

gmisk

Hoboo wrote: »

£36 for the cake. According to reports, 10,000 times that in costs. He targeted that shop knowing it would refuse, just to make a point. Hope it was worth it.

He targeted the shop? Any proof of that?
The actual rulings say the opposite.. ... He had no idea it was 'Christian' bakery.
But hey who needs facts really when you can make up rubbish.

end of the road

Edgware wrote: »

They can tell E.C.H.R. to **** off as well while they are at it

why? because it dared to rain in britain and forced them to modernise? because it dared to rule on the basis of evidence and law rather then jumping to britain's tune and ruling in a way that suits britain all the time?

Zubeneschamali

Until they turn around and refuse to make cakes with Catholic messages, that is.

hatrickpatrick

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

Hoboo

gmisk wrote: »

He targeted the shop? Any proof of that?
The actual rulings say the opposite.. ... He had no idea it was 'Christian' bakery.
But hey who needs facts really when you can make up rubbish.

Of course he didnt know :rolleyes: Because he said he didnt know it must be true. Just like the numerous similar cases in the US, e.g Colorado.

Gay rights activist just happens to request a known christian bakery for a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan. And then takes them to court. M'kay.

I hope he lost his balls.

Ragnar Lothbrok

gozunda wrote: »

Just out of interest what part of the bible has the references to White Power and Nazis etc? I though we were dealing with Christian teachings and biblical prohibitions in a bakery no?


Most of that type of stuff you mentioned is included under incitement to hatred laws afaik. So your have no problem problem there anyway. Interestingly the message asked for doesn't ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

My argument is that a bakery (or any business really) should be able to decide if it makes a particular product or not. Religious views are only one possible reason for this (I'm a lifelong atheist, so that doesn't concern me directly).

This particular case relates to deeply held religious beliefs, which I find frankly ridiculous, but I can appreciate and support their desire to stand by these beliefs.

I would not however, support them if they banned non-heterosexual people from their shop entirely, as that is an entirely different matter.

Perhaps a better example than the neo-nazi cake would be a Republican cake, "Support a United Ireland". As nationalists and unionists now have equality in the eyes of the law, and discrimination on such grounds is illegal, do you believe the bakers (who as Christian fundamentalists are probably unionist or loyalist) should be forced to bake such a cake? I certainly don't think they should (and I'm a Republican).

topper75

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

The finding suggests there was in fact no discrimination though. I tend to agree - there was no precedent of them making any such cake for anybody else.

I'd bake the cake for them no issue. I'd display it in the shop to show off and drum up more business.
But I wouldn't stoop so low for business that I would facilitate any and every political cause. I should be allowed that discretion as a free individual. Others might not like that. But others are not me. Good core values are preserved here. The downsides are mild disappointment (if you take their cake request as bona fide) and an appalling legal bill.

Markcheese

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

But wasn't that in the ruling... Ashers couldn't discriminate against Mr lee, but they didn't have to include a message which was a against their beliefs.

Was this just a simple cake order that spiraled out of control when each side went political and legal? (and people are still heaping more fuel on, with Arlene Foster congratulating ashers bakery), or was it more calculated by one side or the other, ("nothing can be proven anyway) .
At least it was only a cake...

sightband

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that's what I mean - their defense is that they are a Christian bakery, they identified with the Protestant community as part of the publicity surrounding the case, and I would not be at all surprised if their business went up when that community learned that they were a) "one of us" and b) "standing up for us"

Do you happen to know what Lees background? Is he from a nationalist/republican background?