Gay Cake Controversy!

kunst nugget wrote: »

How is it a different argument? Asher's baking a cake saying 'support gay marriage' offends their moral sensibilities just as I'm sure asking a gay baker to make a cake that says 'Gay marriage is immoral and you'll go to hell' would offend his. In both cases, I don't think either should be forced to bake those cakes if they don't want to.

sorry, I should have been clear "moral sensibilities of society" is a term that is used in law to stop people from say, asking for a gaping arsehole on top of their cake. It has to be something that would offend and disgust the majority of right-thinking people.

"Support Gay Marriage" wouldn't satisfy that. "I Anal Beads" probably wouldn't either. A visual representation of Goatse would almost certainly....:)

DeVore wrote: »

sorry, I should have been clear "moral sensibilities of society" is a term that is used in law to stop people from say, asking for a gaping arsehole on top of their cake. It has to be something that would offend and disgust the majority of right-thinking people.

"Support Gay Marriage" wouldn't satisfy that. "I Anal Beads" probably wouldn't either. A visual representation of Goatse would almost certainly....:)

Im pretty sure gay rights wouldnt have got off the ground if there was a nebulous "moral sensibilities" clause hanging over society

The wife is gorgeous though:http://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/article34700079.ece/4ae82/AUTOCROP/w620/2016-05-10_new_20866659_I1.JPG

Advbrd wrote: »

Had to look up Goatse. Yeah, might upset some people.

DO NOT LOOK UP GOATSE!

Seriously. No one needs to see that.

seamus wrote: »

It's not really though. At the end of the day, both courts have found that the order was refused because the customer was gay, not because of the message he wanted to put on the cake.

I think that oversimplifies it a bit (although you are correct that both courts did rule on direct discrimination).

A bit of a disclaimer here - this is my understanding of the law and rulings, but if I'm wrong, I hope somebody will point out where:

Asher's have repeatedly said that they had no idea whether the customer in question was homosexual or heterosexual. The example has been already been given of a straight person ordering the cake and so on.

Had a person that Asher's staff knew to be heterosexual ordered the same cake (being part of the campaign, as a favour etc) and had Asher's refused anyway, this would more than likely have been ruled to a case of discrimination by association.

If the sexuality of the customer was not known to Asher's staff, but Asher's had assumed that the customer was homosexual, based on the request, but it turns out that they were not homosexual, then it would more than likely have been ruled a case of discrimination by perception.

In an earlier ruling, Judge Brownlie decided, based on the request made by the customer, that Asher's 'must have known or suspected' that the customer was homosexual, and it was that decision which caused her to rule on direct discrimination (Judge Brownlie also said that even if she hadn't found direct discrimination, she would still have found indirect discrimination).

I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but the message on the cake isn't irrelevant - it is central to how the judges reached the ruling they did (and they rulings they might have reached, had the sexuality of the customer been different, but the request been the same).

Dr Jakub wrote: »

Refuse to serve someone because they're gay: discrimination

Refuse to serve someone because you don't want to support gay marriage: not discrimination.

Exact same way it would be wrong to refuse to bake a cake for a black person because they're black but not wrong to refuse to bake a cake with a Black Panther message.

Sadly we don't live in a sane world but rather one where the narrative is controlled by the LGBTQIAXYZ victim mafia.

Oh well, they're only hurting their own cause with these stunts.

That's it, let it all out. Rant away.

If only Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Lord Justice Weatherup and Lord Justice Weir with their many, many years of dealing with such cases would listen to you instead.

They found that a supplier may provide a

“particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds”.

They added

“In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”

Are people being deliberately obtuse in relation to this ruling or do we have some people who are normally this slow?

Dr Jakub wrote: »

You shouldn't be bullied into supporting a political campaign you don't agree with.

Should I be bullied into paying taxes?

We are all "bullied" into doing things we might not like but are good for society.

Dr Jakub wrote: »

That's cool, drag people in front of the courts because they don't want to support gay marriage.

Thats not what this case was about at all

DeVore wrote: »

No. Absolutely not, no. Its not ok at all.

Unless that slogan was illegal (ie: hate speeched)... but if they were asked to bake a cake that said

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, only". Then yeah, they should bake the cake and they should be in court if they refuse. For exactly the reasons I've been pointing out which no one seems to want to engage with

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm atheist but respect other peoples beliefs. Ashers didn't want to bake a cake which they felt was contrary to theirs. To me that's acceptable.

I know a guy that thinks black people are sub-human and their children should not be allowed to mix with pure white children. Do I need to respect that belief? Is it acceptable to you?

A Little Pony wrote: »

The owner of the bakery has said he didn't know the customer was gay. So he could not have refused it on those grounds.

It has been a while since i read the previous case, and I have not read this one, but I think the reasoning might be something along the lines of "the slogan is in support of same-sex marriage, the majority of people actively involved in lobbying for same-sex marriage are likely to be gay, by refusing to print the slogan gay people are likely to be disproportionately affected by the refusal, therefore actual knowledge of the sexual orientation of the person is irrelevant" or something.

MrP

lukin wrote: »

Just saw the six-one news report on this. The husband is a serious nutjob:
"It's been a trying time but we are thankful to God and his faithfulness to us through everything - he is still on the throne, he is the ruler of heaven and of earth and he is our God and we worship and we honour him," he said.
Is he for real like?

Yeah he certainly came across that way. Reminded me of that creepy dentist fella that James Nesbitt played in The Secret earlier in the year.

But I wonder is this a storm in a teacup by the gay rights community?

I mean would this have garnered as much attention had he refused to bake a cake for a *INSERT RELIGION HERE* , or one that contained a slogan to repeal the eight? I don't think so.

lukin wrote: »

Just saw the six-one news report on this. The husband is a serious nutjob:
"It's been a trying time but we are thankful to God and his faithfulness to us through everything - he is still on the throne, he is the ruler of heaven and of earth and he is our God and we worship and we honour him," he said.
Is he for real like?

That's a fairly standard evangelical Christian response for those who are acquainted with Northern ways. The beauty of Northerners is that you might not like what they say but they're straight up - no messing around - like it or lump it.