Gay Cake Controversy!

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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?

That's the bit I was responding to.
A shop owner, unlike a barrister, can run their business however they want.

Lest there be any confusion

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He could set up his own business to cater to gays, and call it "Back of the Bus Bakery".

Que??

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Apologies I must have missed that (I was avoiding the thread because I suspected it would be these endless circular arguments). For the avoidance of doubt my position is also that a UDA shop should be able to refuse an IRA slogan and your local KKK pscho should also be allowed to refuse a black power symbol.

Unlike some people I actually welcome diversity of opinion and will support anyone's right to be an asshole as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights. In this case, the gay customer only had to make a few phone calls to get what he wanted so I am not going to put his right to be upset over the christian's bakers right to follow his (admittedly backward) conscience.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How about "Uppity Patisserie"?

By any chance have you injested some of that cake they sell in Amsterdam cafés?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Liberal"? What are you, American?

No, I'm a liberal.

dav3 wrote: »

What part of...

...do some people not understand?

All of it. Because it's utter bull****. A terribly constructed sentence for starters. It might as well just read "You can't disagree with homosexuality, and you certainly can't do it because of any political or religious belief". The judges are idiots.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

No, I'm a liberal.


All of it. Because it's utter bull****. A terribly constructed sentence for starters. It might as well just read "You can't disagree with homosexuality, and you certainly can't do it because of any political or religious belief". The judges are idiots.

No offence but it's only two sentences. What part are you having difficulty with exactly?

I think you should probably leave the interpreting of laws and the passing of judgement to the three most senior judges in Northern Ireland rather than trying to do it yourself.

dav3 wrote: »

No offence but it's only two sentences. What part are you having difficulty with exactly?

I think you should probably leave the interpreting of laws and the passing of judgement to the three most senior judges in Northern Ireland rather than trying to do it yourself.

Yeah, don't even pretend to understand those two sentences. They're incomprehensible at best, entirely illogical at worst. The 3 most senior judges in Norn Iron have got it wrong.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Deise Vu wrote: »

By any chance have you injested some of that cake they sell in Amsterdam caf s?

I am pointing out that this entire discussion happened in the American South about black people. White shopkeepers would not serve them - they had to use their own shops, and their own facilities.

The Pentagon was built with separate toilet facilities for blacks and whites.

We can all be shocked and appalled now, but you are applying the very same logic to gays today. So what if no shopkeeper will serve them? Sure can't they find a gay bar, a gay hairdresser, a gay cake decorator. Why must they come in our shops and get gay all over everything?

There is a world of a difference between refusing to serve someone and refusing to assist in a campaign with which the shopkeeper doesn't agree. There was no issue with the cake, just the slogan on it. For someone who has been nit picking for twenty pages on this thread I would have thought you would have understood the difference.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I can see from this case is. It's ok to make a Christian white cake baker, decorate a cake with beliefs he disagrees with.
But don't you dare, ask the same from.

A gay cake maker.
A Muslim cake maker.
A black cake maker.
A yellow cake maker.
A blue cake maker.

Please explain how the Christian white cake baker isn't been discriminated against while all the other cake bakers aren't?
It is pure and utter lunacy.

Is it just simply because he is a straight Christian white male?

Yes there seems to be some sort of campaign by a section of attention seekers. Beluah print have been targeted again. I'm sure we'll hear more about the "diversity" they champion.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I get the rest.... but what race is the blues?

Your balls :pac:

Sorry. Couldn't resit, after hour and all that.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes
Discrimination by association is illegal in NI and ROI

The judgement he obtained was one of direct discrimination.

The only possible way these genius judges could prove beyond doubt that this was a case of discrimination is if the bakers explicitly said they are were discriminating against the gay customer(s) (unlikely) OR if it could be proven that the bakery had made a similar cake(s) for other customers but refused in this specific instance. No mention of this. In fact the exact opposite has been explicitly argued by the defendants and accepted as truth by the claimants and the court. And even then they would have to be non-homosexual customers due to the discrimination based on sexual orientation aspect. As it is, we have a decision which is as unclear and incoherent as it is crazy.

The equality legislation is designed to protect the rights of minorities, or rather ensure that they are afford the same rights as the rest. Fine. But who is being protected here? If anything, minorities are losing their protection, a fundamental protection, which is the protection of the freedom of expression. This decision is doubly bad, in that not only has it eroded (and set a dangerous precedent) for freedom of expression, but the fact that this fundamental right is designed to most protect minorities (religious, sexual, racial etc.) it has also reduced the right of the very minorities this decision has supposedly been made to protect. This is not a good result for minorities.

osarusan wrote: »

Direct discrimination and discrimination by association are not mutually exclusive.

Direct discrimination by association is a legal term.

Direct discrimination because he was discriminated against directly (rather then indirectly) and by association because it was his association with homosexuals and the SSM campaign that caused his order to be refused.

And the question I asked, which Joeytheparrot replied yes to, was "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?". The judgement was that "Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to make a cake supporting same sex marriage"; it doesn't say the direct discrimination was based on association.

Now I take your point; it's possible the Judge might have concluded he suffered direct discrimination based on association, but neither the original Judge nor the Appeal Judges concluded that, did they? They offered no determination that he was discriminated against because he was associated with a protected class, so the only remaining option is that he was discriminated against because he is a protected class. The Appeals Court added the justification of "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." which seems to me like they wanted to agree with the original determination, but needed to add something which allows a broader scope, just to cover the bases. So whilst it's ridiculous to say someone discriminated against a gay person by not giving them a cake they won't give anyone, it doesn't seem quite so ridiculous to say they discriminated against a gay person who was representative of the entire gay community who are really the only people who could want such a cake.

And my point was that I don't think the Equality Commission would have been so inclined to pursue the issue if Mr Lee were heterosexual; I think they would have balked at saying a heterosexual man was being illegally discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation based on association by virtue of wanting a cake that indicated he was in some way associated with a homosexual cause and therefore homosexual people. Ridiculous as the case actually was, my feeling is that that would have been a step too far into farce, even for the Equality Commission, though I agree with you, such a claim could have resulted in a Judgement that Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation based on association by refusing to make a cake supporting same sex marriage. And how ridiculous that would have been... not that the current ruling isn't ridiculous.