Gay Cake Controversy!

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 01:43PM

So a cake was discriminated against due to its sexual orientation, and the person who tried to buy the cake has won the case.

The cake is the true victim here.

Ridiculous case.

osarusan · 25-10-2016 01:48PM

I kind of see (what i think is) Absolam's point here - the bakery was found guilty of direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because the customer was gay. However, Asher's have always said they didn't know whether he was gay or not, and it wasn't relevant. The judges have ruled that the bakery 'must have known or suspected' he was gay, based on the order he made.

My issue with this (and I think it's Absolam's issue too) is that this is what turned out to be the case.

Had they known the customer was heterosexual (but was a supporter of SSM), and refused the order anyway, it wouldn't have been a case of direct discrimination based on sexual orientation (a protected characteristic), it would have been a case of direct discrimination based on an association with people with a protected characteristic.

Judge Brownlie's comment that the bakery staff 'must have known or suspected' the customer was gay only makes sense as he actually was gay, and would sound quite silly if he had not been (and it's not implausible to me that a heterosexual person might be part of the SSM campaign and ordered the cake instead of Gareth Lee).

I have no problem with Asher's being found guilty of illegal discrimination based on their refusal to complete that order, but I do think the ruling of direct discrimination based on sexual orientation is based more on what turned out to be the case than what was Asher's motivation for the refusal.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 01:59PM

osarusan wrote: »

I have no problem with Asher's being found guilty of illegal discrimination based on their refusal to complete that order

Really? Because nobody seems to be able to answer the "Jewish Bakery being asked to bake a cake with a swastika on it" analogy. And until someone can answer that, this case will not be resolved in my book. Where does the tyranny of the majority end and the erosion of the rights of ALL to supposedly "protect" a minority begin? Ashers bakery it seems.

NuMarvel · 25-10-2016 02:06PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Really? Because nobody seems to be able to answer the "Jewish Bakery being asked to bake a cake with a swastika on it" analogy. And until someone can answer that, this case will not be resolved in my book. Where does the tyranny of the majority end and the erosion of the rights of ALL to supposedly "protect" a minority begin? Ashers bakery it seems.

If I'm a business and I refused to make a product with a swasktika on it, on what grounds would you say I'm discriminating against you?

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 02:17PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If I'm a business and I refused to make a product with a swasktika on it, on what grounds would you say I'm discriminating against you?

An infinite number..

Your argument is the same as asking if a business refused to make a product with "Happy Birthday" printed on it for a customer.

The key is if the business refused to print either cake for one person, but printed it for others. THAT is discrimination. Everything else is conjecture. Including this case.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 25-10-2016 02:22PM

It was a ridiculous case.

If I asked a bakery to ice a cake with Happy Christmas on the top and they said no, they didn't believe in or support Christianity or Christmas, I'd just take my business elsewhere.

There are so many incidents of serious and heartbreaking discrimination occurring every day of the week. And this is what time is being wasted on?

NuMarvel · 25-10-2016 02:24PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

An infinite number...

Not the question I asked you. What grounds would you argue that my refusal is discrimination. And to be clear, I mean discrimination under the law.

HellSquirrel · 25-10-2016 02:28PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

An infinite number..

Your argument is the same as asking if a business refused to make a product with "Happy Birthday" printed on it for a customer.

The key is if the business refused to print either cake for one person, but printed it for others. THAT is discrimination. Everything else is conjecture. Including this case.

"An infinite number" is a ridiculous response. What protected characteristic would be being attacked by refusing to make a cake with a swastika on it?

Edit: I'll make it easy for you. Here are the nine characteristics that it is illegal to discriminate based upon;

• Gender

• Marital status

• Family status

• Sexual orientation

• Religion

• Age

• Disability

• Race/colour/nationality/ethnic or national origins

• Membership of the travelling community.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:28PM

Absolam wrote: »

So... it's not saying regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake.

Yes, it is saying that. It says the order was refused because the message is gay, and that is discrimination.

The message is gay regardless of the orientation of the orderer.

It says the defendants said discrimination against a person is not proven (meaning the orderer) and the court said wrong, discrimination happened because they refused a gay message.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 02:33PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

"An infinite number" is a ridiculous response. What protected characteristic would be being attacked by refusing to make a cake with a swastika on it?

The idea of protected characteristics in relation to a cake is the only thing ridiculous here. The protected characteristics were created to protect people from discrimination. Not cakes! No person was discriminated in this case, given that the bakery would not have provided the same service for any other person belonging to any or the same protected group.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not the question I asked you. What grounds would you argue that my refusal is discrimination. And to be clear, I mean discrimination under the law.

Again, an infinite number. You are refusing to bake the cake, hence I can claim an infinite number of reasons for discrimination, including those explicitly stated under the law.

Penn · 25-10-2016 02:33PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Really? Because nobody seems to be able to answer the "Jewish Bakery being asked to bake a cake with a swastika on it" analogy. And until someone can answer that, this case will not be resolved in my book. Where does the tyranny of the majority end and the erosion of the rights of ALL to supposedly "protect" a minority begin? Ashers bakery it seems.

A swastika constitutes hate speech, and as such the bakery would have the right to refuse to make it, regardless of whether they were Jewish or not.

A cake saying support gay marriage doesn't fall under the same umbrella. As such, it's a false comparison.

This has been answered many times already.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:34PM

Maximus Hollow Plaza wrote: »

If I asked a bakery to ice a cake with Happy Christmas on the top and they said no, they didn't believe in or support Christianity or Christmas, I'd just take my business elsewhere.

You are not legally required to sue them for discrimination if you don't care, but that doesn't alter the fact refusing your order on those grounds would be illegal in the North.

And one reason gays might be more inclined to sue is that this sh!t happens to them all the time, unlike Christmas, which is already in the shops everywhere.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 02:37PM

Penn wrote: »

A swastika constitutes hate speech, and as such the bakery would have the right to refuse to make it, regardless of whether they were Jewish or not.

This right here is why people hate liberals. And I don't blame them one bit. Can we leave aside the utter nonsense of hate speech (speech you or someone else hates) for a moment and continue the grown-up, civilised discussion we were having here?

HellSquirrel · 25-10-2016 02:38PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This right here is why people hate liberals. And I don't blame them one bit. Can we leave aside the utter nonsense of hate speech (speech you or someone else hates) for a moment and continue the grown-up, civilised discussion we were having here?

Can we then leave aside the utter nonsense of your managing to answer "infinite" (I do not think that word means what you think it means for a start) when you have a choice of nine? I mean, it's quite a generous choice, really. Pick one if you want to even pretend to shore up your argument.

If it comes to that I do not think "hate speech" means what you think it means either, but let's at least manage basic numeracy first.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 02:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it is saying that. It says the order was refused because the message is gay, and that is discrimination.

The message is gay regardless of the orientation of the orderer.

It says the defendants said discrimination against a person is not proven (meaning the orderer) and the court said wrong, discrimination happened because they refused a gay message.

This just means the decision is a much worse one than previously thought.

They have set a precedent for the disagreement with of an idea.

It's a very clear cut case. That supposed legal professionals have got spectacularly wrong.

HellSquirrel · 25-10-2016 02:44PM

I have, or would have if I could bring myself to care more than wanting to administer a good clip around the ear to everyone involved, some doubts as to the ruling, but honestly, Arcade_Tryer, your arguments so far are beyond hopeless.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:47PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This just means the decision is a much worse one than previously thought.

They have set a precedent for the disagreement with of an idea.

It's a very clear cut case. That supposed legal professionals have got spectacularly wrong.

It is indeed a very clear cut case. The bakery acted against the law. Now, you may say you don't like the law and it should change. Fine, campaign to change it.

Saying the court is wrong because you don't like the law is very silly.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 02:47PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Can we then leave aside the utter nonsense of your managing to answer "infinite" (I do not think that word means what you think it means for a start) when you have a choice of nine? I mean, it's quite a generous choice, really. Pick one if you want to even pretend to shore up your argument.

If it comes to that I do not think "hate speech" means what you think it means either, but let's at least manage basic numeracy first.

Infinite (a sequence of numbers with no limit) from which you can then choose one of the 9 that best fits.

However, if the business says they do not agree with printing a swastika and I can't prove that they haven't printed swastikas for other people, then I really don't have a case for discrimination. Making sense yet?

A Little Pony · 25-10-2016 02:48PM

dav3 wrote: »

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?

Well that is bollocks because you have businesses on the Shankill Road and Falls road which sell political memorabilia and regalia which is overly political. Either could easily refuse to design a flag with a message on it if it goes against the personal beliefs of the owners.

Same with this case, they are Christians and don't agree with gay marriage. They should not be forced to print a political message on a cake they don't agree with. Otherwise you will get people going into Muslim bakeries and demanding Muhammad be put on cakes. Will it happen? Not a hope in hell.

NuMarvel · 25-10-2016 02:49PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Again, an infinite number. You are refusing to bake the cake, hence I can claim an infinite number of reasons for discrimination, including those explicitly stated under the law.

Well, as the baker who you want to bring a case against, I'm very happy to hear that because this argument is sure to be dismissed by the judge.

HellSquirrel · 25-10-2016 02:49PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Infinite (a sequence of numbers with no limit) from which you can then choose one of the 9 that best fits.

However, if the business says they do not agree with printing a swastika and I can't prove that they haven't printed swastikas for other people, then I really don't have a case for discrimination. Making sense yet?

Legally, you would. If you could prove that any of the nine legal bases for illegal discrimination has been met. I don't care so much about what YOU feel is discriminatory, this is a legal case and so it makes far more sense to argue it from a legal perspective rather than What Arcade_Tryer Thinks. The swastika example meets none of them. Therefore, your argument has been invalid since it left the basket

osarusan · 25-10-2016 02:53PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

The swastika example meets none of them. Therefore, your argument has been invalid since it left the basket

In Northern Ireland, political opinion is also a protected characteristic, and this might actually fall under that.

Penn · 25-10-2016 02:53PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This right here is why people hate liberals. And I don't blame them one bit. Can we leave aside the utter nonsense of hate speech (speech you or someone else hates) for a moment and continue the grown-up, civilised discussion we were having here?

Pretty sure most grown-ups know that "hate speech" doesn't mean "speech you or someone else hates", but rather refers to items falling under Incitement to Hatred.

There's nothing "liberal" about knowing that.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:57PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Otherwise you will get people going into Muslim bakeries and demanding Muhammad be put on cakes.

They refuse, you sue them on the grounds that, what, exactly? They discriminated against you because your sexual orientation makes you want "Muhammad" on a cake? Kinky!

A Little Pony · 25-10-2016 03:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Otherwise you will get people going into Muslim bakeries and demanding Muhammad be put on cakes.

They refuse, you sue them on the grounds that, what, exactly? They discriminated against you because your sexual orientation makes you want "Muhammad" on a cake? Kinky!

If I wanted a cake which has Muhmmad face on it, will the bakery do it? Even if it is against the core beliefs of Muslims? This case just screams anti Christianity the more I look at it. Christians are just an easy target in society now. And I am not even Christian but this case is ridiculously one sided.

NuMarvel · 25-10-2016 03:06PM

osarusan wrote: »

In Northern Ireland, political opinion is also a protected characteristic, and this might actually fall under that.

I think that would be the ground it would have the best chance under, but it's still not completely certain if it meets the criteria. Going by the Asher's judgment, it looks like political opinion is anything relating to government policy or actions. Can it be argued that the Swastika falls under that definition?

Innocently hoping I don't regret asking a question like that in After Hours

osarusan · 25-10-2016 03:13PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think that would be the ground it would have the best chance under, but it's still not completely certain if it meets the criteria. Going by the Asher's judgment, it looks like political opinion is anything relating to government policy or actions. Can it be argued that the Swastika falls under that definition?

In the earlier rulings by Judge Brownlie, Ashers was found guilty of discrimination on the basis of political belief also.

The legislation is specific to NI and was brought in to deal with sectarian-related stuff, but was applied here also.

NuMarvel · 25-10-2016 03:46PM

osarusan wrote: »

In the earlier rulings by Judge Brownlie, Ashers was found guilty of discrimination on the basis of political belief also.

The legislation is specific to NI and was brought in to deal with sectarian-related stuff, but was applied here also.

But due to the lack of a specific definition of political opinion, she took it to mean opinions relating to government policy and actions. Marriage equality would fall within this as at the time the cake was order the Assembly was debating the introduction of same sex marriage. Can the same be said about political opinions that the Swastika would represent?

osarusan · 25-10-2016 03:54PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

But due to the lack of a specific definition of political opinion, she took it to mean opinions relating to government policy and actions. Marriage equality would fall within this as at the time the cake was order the Assembly was debating the introduction of same sex marriage. Can the same be said about political opinions that the Swastika would represent?

It seems you know more about it than I do, I just remember that they were found guilty of it, not the intricacies of why it applied.

So if you're right, then maybe the same legislation wouldn't apply with regard to the swastika.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 04:44PM

Penn wrote: »

Pretty sure most grown-ups know that "hate speech" doesn't mean "speech you or someone else hates", but rather refers to items falling under Incitement to Hatred.

There's nothing "liberal" about knowing that.

I think I'll stick with Orwell on this one over most grown-ups.

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments