Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Gay Cake Controversy!

1…8788909293…129

Comments

  • #2672
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Besides scale there probably isn't a huge difference between mixing the ingredients for a fertilizer bomb and a cake.

    Semtex, gives it that extra kick for the perfect cake.


  • #2673
    Yakuza
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,130 ✭✭✭Yakuza


    The_Valeyard wrote: »
    Fine.

    But no special snowflakes.

    Gay bakery must make no gay marriage cake.

    Feminist bakery must make love both/ save 8th cake

    Muslim's must handle pork and wine if working in supermarket.

    Needs to be across the board, not one rule for one crowd, another rule for another.

    No argument from me there.


  • #2674
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Yakuza wrote: »
    No argument from me there.

    Agreed. Let's have beer.


  • #2675
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    In the early eighties here in the Republic contraceptives could only be dispensed by a pharmacist on the presentation of a valid medical prescription from a practising doctor. Some doctors refused to give the prescriptions, on their religous grounds. Thats what the cake controversy in the North reminds me of.

    (younger people may not realise contraception was illegal in Ireland from 1935 until 1980, when it was legalised with strong restrictions, later loosened. The ban reflected Catholic teachings on sexual morality.)


  • #2676
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,009 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    The_Valeyard wrote: »

    Gay bakery must make no gay marriage cake.

    Feminist bakery must make love both/ save 8th r.

    That is what this ruling implies, yes, in NI at least. I am not sure that political belief is protected in ROI.
    The_Valeyard wrote: »

    Muslim's must handle pork and wine if working in supermarket.

    I think this one would be different, as the non-handling would affect everybody and not be discriminating against a particular group.

    If the Muslim staff handled meat for every customer except Jews, then this ruling would probably be relevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #2677
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The judges came to the conclusion that the issue of gay marriage is something synonymous with the LGBT community, so that refusal to make the cake with the slogan requested would constitute discrimination, regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake.
    Hmm. They didn't actually say regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake, did they? And they did say they upheld the judgement "that Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation" which begs the question; had Gareth Lee been heterosexual, could he have obtained the judgement in the first place? I don't think so; I can't see the Equality Commission saying a heterosexual man has been illegally discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation because what he wants something synonymous with the LGBT community. Can you?
    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. Freedom of expression has its limits, and one of those limits is that it does not entitle you to refuse services to people on the basis of their sexuality (and other things).
    That's not true; the Appeals Court clearly says they and the original Court did not find the order was refused because the customer was gay. The Appeals Court said that "Although it is clear that the judge spent some time explaining her conclusion that the appellants had knowledge or perception either consciously or unconsciously that the respondent was gay or associated with others who were gay, she did not rely on that finding in her conclusion. She found that the appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage. If she had come to the view that the order was cancelled because the respondent was perceived as being gay, this would have been the most straightforward case of direct discrimination and would undoubtedly have been plainly expressed by her. We conclude therefore that the finding was not material to her determination."

    They straightforward said that the original Judgement didn't rely on the fact that the bakers knew or could have know the customer was gay; they supposedly directly discriminated against him by opposing same sex marriage.

    When the Appeal Court made the distinction "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. ", I think they took a narrow enough view to exclude all the other services the bakers provide, but broad enough to include some of what they will provide along with what they won't, without any justification for drawing the line at that point. The appelants clearly don't provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation; they sell all sorts of baked goods to all sorts of people and those goods and services do not reflect their political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation at all, they're just buns and bread.

    Posters on the thread are familiar with the argument that has run along the lines of 'If they make cakes they must make all cakes' or 'If they put messages on cakes they must put all messages on cakes'. The Appeals Court essentially said that if they put religious or political messages on cakes then they must put all religious or political messages on cakes, without ever asking if they put political or religious messages on cakes. Or what necessarily constitutes a political or religious message. If they make a cake with "Congratulations on your appointment" are they then obliged to make cakes with "Support IRA Political Prisoners"? If they make a cake with "On your Bat Mitzvah" are they obliged to make a cake with "Female circumcision is the will of Allah"? Does making Christmas cakes mean they must make Klaicha?

    I see a very clear distinction between choosing what work you do, and choosing who you do that work for, and I think smearing that distinction has led to the judgement in this case. Had the bakers said 'we won't serve gay people', they'd deserve the judgement, but they didn't say that. They said 'this is a cake we don't make', and I think there's been a certain amount of mental gymnastics in order to make that out as sufficiently specific to be illegal, but not quite so specific as to be legal.


  • #2678
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,404 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    maryishere wrote: »
    In the early eighties here in the Republic contraceptives could only be dispensed by a pharmacist on the presentation of a valid medical prescription from a practising doctor. Some doctors refused to give the prescriptions, on their religous grounds. Thats what the cake controversy in the North reminds me of.

    Still the case, in the North anyway. Some doctors will refuse to issue the morning after pill for the same reasons.


  • #2679
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    While I am 100% pro Gay rights I don't agree with this judgement because I don't believe any of us should have the right to dictate to any business about what they can or cannot sell.

    I have no time for homophobia but I do respect every person's right to their beliefs and every business's right to offer whatever services/products they choose.


  • #2680
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    I voted against same sex marriage and so did 40% of the electorate,thats two people in every five.

    I dont appreciate my views being described as outdated.

    I thoroughly agree with Ashers,why should they be bullied by anyone into putting slogans they don't agree with on the cake.That gay couple probably went to Ashers because they knew Ashers would have a problem,they probably could have had the cake iced somewhere else but they wantted to bully Ashers into going against what they believed,i.e. matrimony is the lawful wedding of man and woman,not man and man and not woman and woman.

    I feel very bullied in society now but I will still vote the way I want.I will vote against the Eighth Amendment too because removing it isn't about having the right to terminate babies with fatal foetal abnormalities,thats a horrible expression,babies with foetal abnormalities have the right to be born too even if their lives will be very short.Removing the Eighth Amendment is about abortion on demand and I knew as soon as the same sex marriage went through that the abortion rallyists would get going and think abortion would be as easy to get through.

    Whats the next thing,forcing Ashers to put repeal the 8th amendment on cakes.

    This ruling is utterly daft.


  • #2681
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,009 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Mary63 wrote: »

    .That gay couple probably went to Ashers because they knew Ashers would have a problem
    You seem very familiar with the case indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #2682
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mary63 wrote: »
    I voted against same sex marriage and so did 40% of the electorate,thats two people in every five.
    I dont appreciate my views being described as outdated.
    Actually, 37.93% of those who voted voted against same sex marriage, and only 60.52% of the electorate voted. So only 22.95% of the electorate voted against same sex marriage... only one in five, really. And those one in five now have no choice but to accept that matrimony is the lawful wedding of man and woman,and man and man and woman and woman. Because that is a fact, in the Republic anyways.


  • #2683
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    The campaign was won because thousands of people came home from abroad,people who don't live here and probably will never live here again.

    The number who voted against change was almost 40% and that was in spite of the huge media campaign,the involvement of trade union leaders,the involvement of multinationals,even the involvement of Mary McAleese,an ex president of Ireland.Most of the electorate didn't go out and vote at all,they either couldn't be bothered or else they wanted to vote no or rather didn't want to vote yes.

    This is a substantial proportion of society who don't like the change but have had it imposed on them.They don't appreciate their point of view being described as outdated.They are silently supporting Ashers and applauding their stance. Ashers have stated they will close the bakery rather than put slogans they don't agree with on cakes,what happens to their staff in this scenario.


  • #2684
    dissed doc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭dissed doc


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, 37.93% of those who voted voted against same sex marriage, and only 60.52% of the electorate voted. So only 22.95% of the electorate voted against same sex marriage... only one in five, really. And those one in five now have no choice but to accept that matrimony is the lawful wedding of man and woman,and man and man and woman and woman. Because that is a fact, in the Republic anyways.

    Thanks to the fine work in this cake case, we can also now in Northern Ireland have gay bakers make cakes with "I am the gay baker and I say that gay marriage is not valid" in pink icing. And he cannot refuse!

    What a resounding success and entirely predictable outcome!


  • #2685
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Mary63 wrote: »
    This is a substantial proportion of society who don't like the change but have had it imposed on them

    You are right Mary.

    I was open to the idea of having a homosexual marriage imposed on me.
    But it hasn't worked out at all.... I like the guy, he's sound enough but the sex life is just terrible.

    I now wish that homosexual marriage was not imposed on me.


  • #2686
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Mary63 wrote: »
    Most of the electorate didn't go out and vote at all,they either couldn't be bothered or else they wanted to vote no or rather didn't want to vote yes.

    Most of the electorate did go out and vote - over 60% - the rest of this sentence is bolloxology. We have no idea how the rest of the electorate would have chosen to vote because they chose not to exercise their democratic right. That's their fault.


  • #2687
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,404 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    But it hasn't worked out at all.... I like the guy, he's sound enough but the sex life is just terrible.

    Bit of a pain in the ass eh?

    I'll get my coat...


  • #2688
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Absolam wrote: »
    Hmm. They didn't actually say regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake, did they? And they did say they upheld the judgement "that Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation" which begs the question; had Gareth Lee been heterosexual, could he have obtained the judgement in the first place? I don't think so; I can't see the Equality Commission saying a heterosexual man has been illegally discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation because what he wants something synonymous with the LGBT community. Can you?

    That's how I read this section of the judgement:

    "Counsel for the appellants in this case submitted that in order to establish direct discrimination it was necessary to establish some protected personal characteristic and that such a characteristic could not be established by a difference in treatment in respect of a message on a cake.

    We do not accept this. The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants 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. 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."


  • #2689
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Mary63 wrote: »
    The campaign was won because thousands of people came home from abroad,people who don't live here and probably will never live here again.

    The number who voted against change was almost 40% and that was in spite of the huge media campaign,the involvement of trade union leaders,the involvement of multinationals,even the involvement of Mary McAleese,an ex president of Ireland.Most of the electorate didn't go out and vote at all,they either couldn't be bothered or else they wanted to vote no or rather didn't want to vote yes.

    This is a substantial proportion of society who don't like the change but have had it imposed on them.They don't appreciate their point of view being described as outdated.They are silently supporting Ashers and applauding their stance. Ashers have stated they will close the bakery rather than put slogans they don't agree with on cakes,what happens to their staff in this scenario.

    Surely the people who didn't vote also didn't want to vote no. Also while the people coming back to vote was heartwarming they didn't swing the vote. They just changed the magnitude of the victory.

    Having change forces on them is a strong term given it hasn't affected their lives an iota. Yes a large proportion voted no and as an Irish man I am not proud of them (and I am sure they aren't proud of me voting yes). However I am confident in a few years time when the country is still standing people will realise it hasn't hurt them in the slightest and has made others happy.

    As for the case I can't see how it isn't discrimination. As the judge said putting on some icing is not supporting it. They took the order and only didn't fulfill it because of their own homophobia. They didn't have to go out and support the cause. They didn't have to put their name on the event. They just had to bake a cake. Being a baker's (what exactly is a Christian bakery - will the building go to heaven) fail to see how this is a big ask


  • #2690
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    lukin wrote: »
    "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.

    So the Gay Cake controversy did not cause God to abdicate? Damn, another Satanic plot foiled!

    Seriously, the idea that the creator and ruler of the Universe gives a crap about cake decorating betrays a distinct lack of perspective on the scale of the Universe and our place in it.


  • #2691
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mary63 wrote: »
    This is a substantial proportion of society who don't like the change but have had it imposed on them.

    Me too. I've been forced to marry another man completely against my will.

    I mean, we get on fine and have a lot in common, but there's no real spark there. But we're trying to make it work for the sake of the children we forcibly removed from their mothers.


  • Advertisement
  • #2692
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Mary63 wrote: »
    The campaign was won because thousands of people came home from abroad,people who don't live here and probably will never live here again.

    Unless you have evidence to the contrary, their votes are as valid as anyone else's. Besides which, the campaign was won by a margin of 467,307 votes. They weren't all home-to-voters.


  • #2693
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's how I read this section of the judgement:

    "Counsel <...> discrimination."

    Yet that section doesn't actually say it, does it? So you read something that isn't actually there?


  • #2694
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Yet that section doesn't actually say it, does it?

    Yes:

    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.

    It wouldn't matter if the parish priest ordered the cake: the message supported gay marriage, the order was cancelled.The defendants said that it had to be proven that the bakers knew the order was from a gay person for it to be discrimination, and the court said We do not accept this.


  • #2695
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    " The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people."

    I find this statement/reasoning odd.

    I'm heterosexual , and I feel It's good for me and the society I live in that gay people feel accepted and equal.

    It takes one more bit of unnecessary tension/discrimination out of society as a whole.

    I would feel that gay friends , relations or colleagues would be living with rights/protections I would expect for myself. I see that as a benefit to myself as well. It makes me feel better about the society / community I share in.

    I could go on with other reasons as to why I feel it's not just gay/bisexual folks that benefit, but the point is I think the statement made is flawed .

    It seems to me that "Ashers" refused to endorse/advance a slogan ,and did not/do not refuse to serve cake to people because of their sexuality.

    I'd have no problem making a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.

    These folks felt they had the right to refuse to write a slogan they did not agree with.Surely that's a right we would all like to hold. Surely none of us would wish to be prosecuted for refusing to make a slogan we do not support.


  • #2696
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes:

    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.

    It wouldn't matter if the parish priest ordered the cake: the message supported gay marriage, the order was cancelled.The defendants said that it had to be proven that the bakers knew the order was from a gay person for it to be discrimination, and the court said We do not accept this.

    Where exactly does that say regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake?


  • #2697
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    Gay people had all the rights and protections they needed under the existing Equality legislation.

    Really stupid arguments saying people shouldn't have voted NO because voting YEs didn't mean gay relationships would be imposed on them.Same silly argument is used by pro abortionists,vote yes because it doesn't mean you have to have an abortion.

    This is like saying make incest legal because it doesn't mean you have to have sex with YOUR brother or make drugs legal because no one is going to make you take heroin.


  • #2698
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Absolam wrote: »
    Where exactly does that say regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake?

    Where exactly does it say because of the orientation of the person ordering the cake?


  • #2699
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Where exactly does that say regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake?

    here:

    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.

    The court is stating that the reason the order was cancelled was NOT because the orderer was gay, it was because the message supported a right for gay marriage.

    And then that this does not mean that discrimination did not happen, because the message (not the orderer) is gay. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.


  • #2700
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Penn wrote: »
    Where exactly does it say because of the orientation of the person ordering the cake?
    I didn't say it did, but it does say "Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to make a cake supporting same sex marriage", and as I said above, it begs the question; had Gareth Lee been heterosexual, could he have obtained the judgement in the first place? I don't think so; I can't see the Equality Commission saying a heterosexual man has been illegally discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation because what he wants is something synonymous with the LGBT community. Can you?
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    here:
    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.
    The court is stating that the reason the order was cancelled was NOT because the orderer was gay, it was because the message supported a right for gay marriage.
    So... it's not saying regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    And then that this does not mean that discrimination did not happen, because the message (not the orderer) is gay. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.
    Not a point I was making though. The point I was making was that Gareth Lee was held to have been discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation because what he asked for had an association with the gay and bisexual community, yet had Gareth Lee been heterosexual I don't believe he would have been held to have been discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation in the first place, despite asking for and being refused the very same product.


  • Advertisement
  • #2701
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Mary63 wrote: »
    Gay people had all the rights and protections they needed under the existing Equality legislation.

    And to bring us back on topic, because the thread isn't about the marriage referendum, the case was brought and found to be discrimination under existing legislation.

    Do you have anything to say relevant to the discussion or do you want to still gripe about the result of an 18 month old referendum?


Advertisement
Advertisement