Gay Cake Controversy!

Mary63 · 25-10-2016 04:54PM

So now the Law is going to force shopkeepers to put slogans they fundamentally disagree with on their produce.

I thought we lived in a democracy.

Penn · 25-10-2016 05:05PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

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

Putting your faith in a book rather than facts?

Sounds about right.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 05:09PM

Penn wrote: »

Putting your faith in a book rather than facts?

Sounds about right.

Are entirely absent from your argument. Along with reason.

Deise Vu · 25-10-2016 05:10PM

By any chance was this case taken by some right-wing gay-bashing nutcase? I can't think what purpose it serves only to set back the granting of minority rights 100 years.

I am confused, does the ruling make it compulsory to work for the gay community now? Can a fish-on-Friday Catholic or fanatical Muslim Barrister be compelled to take a case in support of, for example, gay adoption? Would a tradesman be obliged to work on a gay bar whether he wanted to or not? Will we see pro-gay agenda advertisements in the Nordie equivalent of the Irish Catholic (not that I'm a subscriber mind!).

The world has truly gone mad.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:12PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

If I wanted a cake which has Muhmmad face on it, will the bakery do it?

No.

Now, can you say which protected group is identified with wanting Muhmmad (??) on a cake?

Is it a sexual thing? A traveller thing?

Because I think it is just a jerk thing where you are trying to annoy Muslims, and jerks are not a protected group under anti-discrimination law.

OldNotWIse · 25-10-2016 05:16PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

By any chance was this case taken by some right-wing gay-bashing nutcase? I can't think what purpose it serves only to set back the granting of minority rights 100 years.

I am confused, does the ruling make it compulsory to work for the gay community now? Can a fish-on-Friday Catholic or fanatical Muslim Barrister be compelled to take a case in support of, for example, gay adoption? Would a tradesman be obliged to work on a gay bar whether he wanted to or not? Will we see pro-gay agenda advertisements in the Nordie equivalent of the Irish Catholic (not that I'm a subscriber mind!).

The world has truly gone mad.

AFAIK, a barrister is required to accept a brief notwithstanding that he or she may not agree with it. Nice when people can carry out their work professionally and objectively without allowing their own prejudices to obstruct the running of business, isn't it?

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:20PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Can a fish-on-Friday Catholic or fanatical Muslim Barrister be compelled to take a case in support of, for example, gay adoption? Would a tradesman be obliged to work on a gay bar whether he wanted to or not? Will we see pro-gay agenda advertisements in the Nordie equivalent of the Irish Catholic (not that I'm a subscriber mind!).

Can a white lawyer be compelled to take black clients? Would a white tradesman be obliged to work in a gangsta rap venue? Will newspapers have to run ads for travellers rights campaigns?

Panthro · 25-10-2016 05:20PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

AFAIK, a barrister is required to accept a brief notwithstanding that he or she may not agree with it. Nice when people can carry out their work professionally and objectively without allowing their own prejudices to obstruct the running of business, isn't it?

If it's their business which they built from the ground up they can run it any which way they like as far as I'm concerned, if you don't agree with them the doors all yours to walk back out.

Deise Vu · 25-10-2016 05:21PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Now, can you say which protected group is identified with wanting Muhmmad (??) on a cake?

Is it a sexual thing? A traveller thing?

Because I think it is just a jerk thing where you are trying to annoy Muslims, and jerks are not a protected group under anti-discrimination law.

OK, how about a muslim who goes into a gay bakery (why does every post in this thread sound like the beginning of a bad joke). He wants 7:80-84 of the Quran on his cake which reads:

"...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"

Can the gay baker refuse to put this on the cake or would he be discriminating on religious grounds?

Deise Vu · 25-10-2016 05:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can a white lawyer be compelled to take black clients? Would a white tradesman be obliged to work in a gangsta rap venue? Will newspapers have to run ads for travellers rights campaigns?

And your point is?

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 05:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Now, can you say which protected group is identified with wanting Muhmmad (??) on a cake?

Is it a sexual thing? A traveller thing?

Because I think it is just a jerk thing where you are trying to annoy Muslims, and jerks are not a protected group under anti-discrimination law.

Going by that logic:

Man walks into a bakery and asks for a cake with "Happy Birthday" on it. Baker refuses.

Now name for me the protected group identified with wanting "Happy Birthday" on cake?

Is it a sexual thing? A Traveller thing?

No. It's none of them. But yet it is all of them. It is infinite. You or I have no idea why the baker is refusing to bake the cake in that instance. Yet by the very logic you are using, you would excuse the baker from baking the cake in that instance because something something "jerks" and "jerks are not protected under the law" Please! Like the judgement in the Ashers case, are you really just making it up as you go along? I think it's pretty clear.

Fuzzytrooper · 25-10-2016 05:28PM

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.

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.

Minor nitpick, the swastika is actually a religious symbol, a variant of which was taken by the Nazi's. It all depends on the context.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:32PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Can the gay baker refuse to put this on the cake or would he be discriminating on religious grounds?

He would certainly be discriminating on religious grounds, but he could offer a defence that the order was a deliberate provocation. That is not really a message I can imagine anyone wanting on a cake except to provoke a case, and the court might well agree and throw it out.

This case is different, in that gay marriage was a real matter of political debate and such a cake might be ordered in good faith - it was not just a two-fingers gesture to any protected group.

And before anyone starts with the "Oh no, it's all a matter of opinion, I want it proven beyond all doubt like a maths question!", welcome to Law.

OldNotWIse · 25-10-2016 05:32PM

Panthro wrote: »

If it's their business which they built from the ground up they can run it any which way they like as far as I'm concerned, if you don't agree with them the doors all yours to walk back out.

A barrister is not allowed to set up their own business or practice.

OldNotWIse · 25-10-2016 05:34PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

OK, how about a muslim who goes into a gay bakery (why does every post in this thread sound like the beginning of a bad joke). He wants 7:80-84 of the Quran on his cake which reads:

"...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"

Can the gay baker refuse to put this on the cake or would he be discriminating on religious grounds?

That depends.... is it a vegan cake? :pac:

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:34PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

And your point is?

The answer to my questions is "Yes, of course!"

You only see an issue with the same answer to your questions because you personally are against racism but not discrimination against gays.

The law is against both.

Panthro · 25-10-2016 05:37PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

A barrister is not allowed to set up their own business or practice.

I agree A shop owner is. It's up to them how they want to run their own business.

Arcade_Tryer · 25-10-2016 05:37PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And before anyone starts with the "Oh no, it's all a matter of opinion, I want it proven beyond all doubt like a maths question!", welcome to BAD Law.

Bad decisions based on bad law. And as shown in my previous post, your logic is entirely flawed.

Refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it is exactly the same as refusing to bake a cake with Happy Birthday on it according to your logic.

What has happened here is that useful and necessary measures put in place to protect minorities (i.e. the 9 grounds for discrimination against persons) have been bastardised and exploited to erode the protections of the majority (i.e. freedom of expression and religion), the effect of which has impacted on Ashers bakery). Essentially liberal apologism gone awry, as it usually does.

ScumLord · 25-10-2016 05:38PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

OK, how about a muslim who goes into a gay bakery (why does every post in this thread sound like the beginning of a bad joke). He wants 7:80-84 of the Quran on his cake which reads:

"...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"

Can the gay baker refuse to put this on the cake or would he be discriminating on religious grounds?

It would be a pretty big cake to get all that on it, if it was me I'd swallow my pride and charge €300 for the cake.

OldNotWIse · 25-10-2016 05:38PM

Panthro wrote: »

I agree A shop owner is. It's up to them how they want to run their own business.

I know, but you were responding to my post in which I answered a query about barristers

Panthro · 25-10-2016 05:40PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I know, but you were responding to my post in which I answered a query about barristers

Oh sure...sure..

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:43PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Man walks into a bakery and asks for a cake with "Happy Birthday" on it. Baker refuses. Now name for me the protected group identified with wanting "Happy Birthday" on cake?

There is none, so there is no case.

Unless the orderer is a Catholic in a Protestant shop, or a Gay in a bigoted shop, or a Jew in a fascist shop, or a woman in a Gamergate shop, or a traveller in just about any shop, and a case can be made which is not dependent on the message.

But this hypothetical is not relevant to this case, where it was the message itself which caused the order to be refused.

OldNotWIse · 25-10-2016 05:43PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Can a fish-on-Friday Catholic or fanatical Muslim Barrister be compelled to take a case in support of, for example, gay adoption?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

AFAIK, a barrister is required to accept a brief notwithstanding that he or she may not agree with it. Nice when people can carry out their work professionally and objectively without allowing their own prejudices to obstruct the running of business, isn't it?

Panthro wrote: »

If it's their business which they built from the ground up they can run it any which way they like as far as I'm concerned, if you don't agree with them the doors all yours to walk back out.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

A barrister is not allowed to set up their own business or practice.

Panthro wrote: »

Oh sure...sure..

Lest there be any confusion

Annasopra · 25-10-2016 05:43PM

vicwatson wrote: »

Human rights to refuse weren't upheld, that or I dunno, ask them:rolleyes:

The court actually went through the appeal against the European Convention on Human Rights.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:45PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Essentially liberal apologism gone awry, as it usually does.

"Liberal"? What are you, American?

Deise Vu · 25-10-2016 05:48PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The answer to my questions is "Yes, of course!"

You only see an issue with the same answer to your questions because you personally are against racism but not discrimination against gays.

The law is against both.

That's a pretty bold statement there to extrapolate from a few posts but why am I not surprised.

Actually I think the gay baker should be entitled not to put religious messages on cakes, whether inflammatory or otherwise because what I actually believe in is freedom of expression and freedom of opinion without absolutist bull**** such as this judgement. The gay customer is perfectly entitled to shop around until he finds one of the many shops who would have been delighted to have his business, he is perfectly entitled to voice his opinion on the shop(s) that refuse him and the bakers are perfectly entitled, in my view, to refuse business which goes against their (limited) view of the world.

its not a difficult concept, it's called live and let live.

Penn · 25-10-2016 05:49PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Bad decisions based on bad law. And as shown in my previous post, your logic is entirely flawed.

Refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it is exactly the same as refusing to bake a cake with Happy Birthday on it according to your logic.

As has been said, the swastika would fall under Incitement to Hatred and the baker could refuse it. It's a completely separate scenario.

dav3 · 25-10-2016 05:55PM

How are there people still struggling to accept this ruling?

It's a fairly straight forward case, people should have no problem understating the outcome.

What part of...

“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.”

...do some people not understand?

Annasopra · 25-10-2016 05:56PM

Absolam wrote: »

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. Can you?

Yes

Discrimination by association is illegal in NI and ROI

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 05:57PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Actually I think the gay baker should be entitled not to put religious messages on cakes

I notice you did not comment on the examples where the discrimination was racist, because we all accept that a shopkeeper refusing to serve blacks and Taigs is wrong.

But in the same situation, refusing to serve gays is OK because religion.

Well, no. There were plenty of people who opposed mixed marriage and said their Bible told them so. There were plenty of people who said slavery was A-OK with Jesus, with quotes.

The law cannot put up with "My religion says my daughter can't vote, and I can beat her if she tries". And it won't put up with "St. Paul said gays are icky, so no cake" either.

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments