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…9192949697…129

Comments

  • #2792
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,056 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    getzls wrote: »
    I was listening to theNolan Show.
    There was a guy on from the equality commission on.
    He said if a person walked into a bakers on the Shankill Rd and asked for a cake praising the Shankill road bombers that killed 9 people there the bakery would have to make it.
    Seriously something wrong there.

    Thats what you get when you make it against the law for people to say 'no'.


  • #2793
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absolam wrote: »
    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.


    You even quoted the relevant part of the judgement yourself!!
    Absolam wrote: »
    This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community....

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2794
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    No, you quoted what it said. Specifically, "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 certainly didn't say 'regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake', nor did it say the message is gay.

    Did it mention the orientation of the orderer? No - it said the order was refused because of the message.

    Therefore the order was refused without reference to the orientation of the orderer (in the opinion of the court).
    You're seriously trying to tell us that a message can be homosexual, and that a Court agrees with your notion? You've gone far beyond stretching the grounds of credulity with that one I'm afraid.

    The judgement did not say "The message was gay", but since you seem to be having difficulty understanding the plain English in the judgement, I am trying to simplify it. The actual text of the judgement meaning "The message was gay" is in your post:

    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.

    Notice that there is nothing in that text about the orderer at all. The orderer could have been Pope Francis, and the message would still benefit only gays, be associated with the gay community, and refusing the order because of it would still be discrimination.

    You may have the last million words on the subject.


  • #2795
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Arcade_Tryer wrote: »
    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.

    Firstly, there is no legal requirement for the judges to prove anything to anyone.

    Secondly, proof "beyond doubt" is not required in discrimination cases, they are more like a civil case where "the balance of probabilities" is the standard used.


  • #2796
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    You even quoted the relevant part of the judgement yourself!!
    You understand that that's a quote from the Appeal ruling, not the original Judgement, which did not say the discrimination was based on association? Which was my point regarding the Appeal Judgement.....

    But the question I asked, and you answered, 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?".

    Not whether someone could expand the justification during the Appeal process... which they obviously did. And yes, now that the Appeals Court has said it's possible to be discriminated against simply by engaging with a message which can be associated with a protected class there's a wealth of possibility, but still I don't think had Gareth Lee been heterosexual he would have obtained the Judgement in the first place, or even the support of the Equality Commission in making the complaint.


  • Advertisement
  • #2797
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Did it mention the orientation of the orderer? No - it said the order was refused because of the message.
    Therefore the order was refused without reference to the orientation of the orderer (in the opinion of the court).
    That 'therefore' really just says you're inferring... which you kind of have to really, since, as you can see, the Judgement doesn't actually say 'regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake' (or that the message is gay). But as you say, there is no reference to the orientation of the orderer, so clearly it can't have said 'regardless of the orientation of the person ordering the cake' because it,as you said, made no reference to the orientation of the person ordering the cake.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The judgement did not say "The message was gay", but since you seem to be having difficulty understanding the plain English in the judgement, I am trying to simplify it. The actual text of the judgement meaning "The message was gay" is in your post: 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. Notice that there is nothing in that text about the orderer at all. The orderer could have been Pope Francis, and the message would still benefit only gays, be associated with the gay community, and refusing the order because of it would still be discrimination.
    You may have the last million words on the subject.
    I think I'll just stick with; it doesn't say the message was gay, does it? In plain English, or otherwise. Nor do I think messages have sexual preferences, and I doubt there's a Judge in the British Isles who'll disagree with me, and Pope Francis would likely row in with them. Messages aren't gay. Or straight. Or any other sexual orientation.


  • #2798
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    In our haste to be progressive and inclusive we may find that end up going just the other way. I'm pro gay marriage and not a fan of religion but this judgement does not sit right with me in any respect.


  • #2799
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    I'm a fairly liberal sort of a person
    the bakery should have a right to refuse to do a job


    same as if you asked a carpenter to do a job in the house and he didn't want to do it. Could you then sue him?


  • #2800
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭Christy42


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    I'm a fairly liberal sort of a person
    the bakery should have a right to refuse to do a job


    same as if you asked a carpenter to do a job in the house and he didn't want to do it. Could you then sue him?

    If they refused because you were black then yes you could. There are reasons for anti discrimination laws.

    As for the Ashers not knowing he was gay. They had to have an idea. If I shout abuse at two guys kissing I can't use "I would have done the same to two straight guys kissing on a bet" or other such nonsense as a defense.


  • #2801
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    same as if you asked a carpenter to do a job in the house and he didn't want to do it. Could you then sue him?

    It depends on why he didn't want to do it. If he says "I don't do work for itinerants" then yes, you could.


  • Advertisement
  • #2802
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Christy42 wrote: »
    If they refused because you were black then yes you could. There are reasons for anti discrimination laws.

    As for the Ashers not knowing he was gay. They had to have an idea. If I shout abuse at two guys kissing I can't use "I would have done the same to two straight guys kissing on a bet" or other such nonsense as a defense.

    Did the guy mince into the bakery wearing assless chaps singing show tunes? Anyway they specifically said they had served him before and would be happy to do so again. It was the political message they were opposed to. Very dangerous ruling imo.


  • #2803
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,008 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Absolam wrote: »

    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?
    Yes, the appeal judges did conclude that. As was pointed out, you even quoted that in your post:
    Absolam wrote: »
    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."

    You are incorrect when you say that the appeals judges didn't conclude that.


  • #2804
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,008 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Christy42 wrote: »
    As for the Ashers not knowing he was gay. They had to have an idea. If I shout abuse at two guys kissing I can't use "I would have done the same to two straight guys kissing on a bet" or other such nonsense as a defense.
    I disagree with this. I know some heterosexuals who were actively involved in the SSM campaign last year, canvassing and other stuff.

    It is fair to assume (or have an idea) that the people knocking on the door asking you to support SSM are all gay?

    It would have been clear to Asher's that he was associated with the SSM campaign in NI, but I think it's fairly stereotypical to infer from that association that he must be gay. That is what the judge in the original trial did in this case though, which I don't agree with.


  • #2805
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭Christy42


    osarusan wrote: »
    I disagree with this. I know some heterosexuals who were actively involved in the SSM campaign last year, canvassing and other stuff.

    It is fair to assume (or have an idea) that the people knocking on the door asking you to support SSM are all gay?

    It would have been clear to Asher's that he was associated with the SSM campaign in NI, but I think it's fairly stereotypical to infer from that association that he must be gay. That is what the judge in the original trial did in this case though, which I don't agree with.

    It doesn't have to be fair. It just has to be common. I reckon it is a common enough inference even if it is not a reliable guide.


  • #2806
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,008 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Christy42 wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be fair. It just has to be common. .
    I would expect a judge to be fair, rather than just common.

    The original judge ruled that they must have known or had the perception he was gay, based on the order and the associations with that order.

    Whether or not the average joe would come to that conclusion, I would expect fairness from a judge.


  • #2807
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    osarusan wrote: »
    Yes, the appeal judges did conclude that. As was pointed out, you even quoted that in your post: You are incorrect when you say that the appeals judges didn't conclude that.
    True, the Appeals court said the case was one of association, and therefore it was direct discrimination.. which is close enough; I should have said the original Judge did not conclude it.


  • #2808
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭Christy42


    osarusan wrote: »
    I would expect a judge to be fair, rather than just common.

    The original judge ruled that they must have known or had the perception he was gay, based on the order and the associations with that order.

    Whether or not the average joe would come to that conclusion, I would expect fairness from a judge.

    Sorry not what I meant. If you feel someone is gay and discriminate on this basis then you are discriminating. the fact that you are using a bad stereotype is besides the point. Thus the judge has to figure if it is likely the Asher's thought he was gay. Not was it likely he was gay given what the Asher's knew.


  • #2809
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absolam wrote: »
    You understand that that's a quote from the Appeal ruling, not the original Judgement, which did not say the discrimination was based on association? Which was my point regarding the Appeal Judgement.....

    But the question I asked, and you answered, 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?".

    Not whether someone could expand the justification during the Appeal process... which they obviously did. And yes, now that the Appeals Court has said it's possible to be discriminated against simply by engaging with a message which can be associated with a protected class there's a wealth of possibility, but still I don't think had Gareth Lee been heterosexual he would have obtained the Judgement in the first place, or even the support of the Equality Commission in making the complaint.

    As I said discrimination by association is illegal in NI and ROI. You can think what you think but the law is a fact.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2810
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    As I said discrimination by association is illegal in NI and ROI. You can think what you think but the law is a fact.

    Sure.. or at least direct discrimination based on association is, but I wasn't disputing what the law says. I was asking whether or not people thought that had Gareth Lee been heterosexual could he have obtained the judgement in the first place. There is obviously a route laid out by the Judges statements in the Appeal which would indicate it's technically possible, but as I was saying, I think it's so farcical that it seems unlikely the Equality Commission or the Judge in the original case would have considered it.

    Do you think if he were heterosexual the Commission would have pursued the complaint and the Judge would have found in his favour?


  • #2811
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,008 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure.. or at least direct discrimination based on association is, but I wasn't disputing what the law says. I was asking whether or not people thought that had Gareth Lee been heterosexual could he have obtained the judgement in the first place.
    He had he been heterosexual, I think it is fair to say he would not have obtained the judgement of direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    He could still have obtained the judgement of direct discrimination based on association, or indeed, direct discrimination based on perception - the judge found that from the specific order he made, Asher's 'must have know or had the perception that he was gay', and and so even if he had been heterosexual, it's possible that she would have ruled on perception also.
    Absolam wrote: »
    There is obviously a route laid out by the Judges statements in the Appeal which would indicate it's technically possible, but as I was saying, I think it's so farcical that it seems unlikely the Equality Commission or the Judge in the original case would have considered it.

    Do you think if he were heterosexual the Commission would have pursued the complaint and the Judge would have found in his favour?

    I don't think the ruling is merely 'technical' or 'farcical' at all. I'd say it's a textbook case of discrimination by association.

    Would the equality commission have pursued the complaint? We can only guess, but I don't see why not.


  • Advertisement
  • #2812
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absolam wrote: »

    Do you think if he were heterosexual the Commission would have pursued the complaint and the Judge would have found in his favour?

    What basis have you for thinking they wouldn't?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2813
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    osarusan wrote: »
    I don't think the ruling is merely 'technical' or 'farcical' at all. I'd say it's a textbook case of discrimination by association.

    Would the equality commission have pursued the complaint? We can only guess, but I don't see why not.

    it was clearly discrimination against an idea. there was no indication that they wouldn't have served gay people

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #2814
    Dr Jakub
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 314 ✭✭Dr Jakub


    dav3 wrote: »
    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...



    ...do some people not understand?

    Yes comrade let's make it illegal to oppose gay marriage, what a great idea. Should send those horrible Christians to the gulag.


  • #2815
    Deise Vu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    silverharp wrote: »
    it was clearly discrimination against an idea. there was no indication that they wouldn't have served gay people

    This is the scary aspect of this. Ashers must be serving Gay customers every single day but they baulked at the notion of icing a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it. That clearly demonstrates they are not anti gay, only anti gay marriage. That is their interpretation of their Christian beliefs. It would likely also be the interpretation of a fanatical Muslim baker.

    We are now in the inevitable situation where PC BS has disappeared up it's own rear end where we are trying to legislate for completely opposing minority viewpoints with a court decision straight out of 1984 (the book not the year).

    Which brings me back to my original point, I reckon Gareth Lee is a gay bashing, skinhead, fascist who has come up with a brilliant idea to expose gay hypocrisy.


  • #2816
    Dr Jakub
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 314 ✭✭Dr Jakub


    Deise Vu wrote: »
    This is the scary aspect of this. Ashers must be serving Gay customers every single day but they baulked at the notion of icing a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it. That clearly demonstrates they are not anti gay, only anti gay marriage. That is their interpretation of their Christian beliefs. It would likely also be the interpretation of a fanatical Muslim baker.

    We are now in the inevitable situation where PC BS has disappeared up it's own rear end where we are trying to legislate for completely opposing minority viewpoints with a court decision straight out of 1984 (the book not the year).

    Which brings me back to my original point, I reckon Gareth Lee is a gay bashing, skinhead, fascist who has come up with a brilliant idea to expose gay hypocrisy.

    Not a fanatical Muslim, many ordinary Muslims are against gay marriage. Doesn't necessarily make them bad people either.

    Of course if the owners were Muslim, the liberals types would probably defend them, lest they be accused of being Islamophobic...


  • #2817
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Dr Jakub wrote: »
    Yes comrade let's make it illegal to oppose gay marriage, what a great idea. Should send those horrible Christians to the gulag.

    It's not illegal to oppose marriage equality and no one is suggesting that it should be. However, in Northern Ireland, it is unlawful to refuse service to someone because they are in favour of marriage equality, i.e. because of their political beliefs.


  • #2818
    Dr Jakub
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 314 ✭✭Dr Jakub


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    It's not illegal to oppose marriage equality and no one is suggesting that it should be. However, in Northern Ireland, it is unlawful to refuse service to someone because they are in favour of marriage equality, i.e. because of their political beliefs.

    Wow so progressive. Intolerance will not be tolerated!


  • #2819
    Deise Vu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Deise Vu


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    It's not illegal to oppose marriage equality and no one is suggesting that it should be. However, in Northern Ireland, it is unlawful to refuse service to someone because they are in favour of marriage equality, i.e. because of their political beliefs.

    They didn't refuse Gareth Lee because of his political beliefs, he could have any cake in the shop and ordered practically any decoration on said cake, just not one that had slogans which were against the Asher's interpretation of their religious beliefs.

    I am giving up at this point. If people who claim to be oppressed cannot understand that it is the worst kind of fascism to be forcing someone else to carry out work with which they fundamentally disagree, and which they consider to be contrary to their religion, there is little point in me wasting internet ink trying to persuade them differently.


  • #2820
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    If you read the full judgment it's very fascist.

    The Court of Appeal acknowledged, both unilaterally and on foot of submissions made by Ashers lawyers, the direct comparator element of the 2006 Regulations, specifically Regulation 5(1)(b), being that a heterosexual person ordering the same cake would also be refused.

    They then completely ignored that comparator. They simply said "we do not accept that submission, the "keyword is 'gay'" and upheld the original finding of direct discrimination against the MacArthurs.

    Chilling times.


  • Advertisement
  • #2821
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Dr Jakub wrote: »
    Wow so progressive. Intolerance will not be tolerated!

    I can't help it if you don't like the law, but you're welcome to write to your MLA to have it changed.


Advertisement
Advertisement