Gay Cake Controversy!

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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

If you don't like it, change the law.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You fail to conceptually grasp the point.

The Regulations as drafted are perfect.

The judges applied those Regulations incorrectly.

After hearing from both sides, four judges across two courts say otherwise. What makes you more qualified than them to speak on the matter?

One final item for clarity here. I am not arguing about the law or the judgement given, I am arguing about what is right and what is wrong. If the judges in question have given a 100% accurate interpretation of the law, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed. I am neither gay nor religious yet I am obliged to uphold the rights of all citizens equally. What am I expected to do I do if I am in a work situation where a religious fanatic is barking about his right to oppose gay marriage but a gay customer is insisting that the religious fanatic compromise his beliefs or else?

Once again I congratulate Agent Lee. His work is done and he can now return to his local National Front chapter as a hero.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And people can campaign to have the law changed if they wish. But to do that, the problem with the law must be identified. It's not enough to simply say the law is wrong and must be changed. What's wrong about it? What's it doing that it's not supposed, or not doing that it should?

I don't expect people to read through acres of judgements or the like, but if we want to have a reasoned discussion about it, then it must go further than simply "it's wrong". And preferably stay away from allegations of fascism, etc that some people are throwing out.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The Ashers are being forced to carry out work that is against their Christian beliefs. Forcing someone to act against their conscience is clearly fascist. Particularly when it is something as trivial as icing on a bloody cake. Earlier posters have compared this farce with Rosa Parks stance. That is an insult to Rosa Parks and every black person in the Southern States of the USA and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 50.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Honestly, I'm struggling to think of a work situation where you'll have customers making demands of each other, and not of you. You a negotiator in the UN or something? :P

Name a work situation and I will give you an example. Printing? Gay marriage poster, religious fanatic graphic artist. Distribution ? Religious fanatic driver won't deliver gay posters. Bakery? (Ah, you probably could think of one yourself). And of course all of these situations hold for the reverse, Gay employee and religious customer.

NuMarvel wrote: »

We can get by without the snide character remarks. Until I see something to the contrary, I'm going to assume the customer did what he thought and believed was right. If we are ready to accept that the bakery in good faith, then we should extend the same courtesy to the customer.

And while you are making assumptions I am also going to assume that Agent Lee knew exactly what he was getting into when he went to Ashers. He knew exactly what reaction he would provoke. If he really wanted a cake (God, that just sounds so ridiculous) he would just have gone to one of the dozens of other bakeries who would have obliged, no problem. But no, he wanted the thrill of forcing what he perceives as bigots to be humiliated by agreeing to the request or else face the consequences of bad law. The problem of course has always been that one man's bigots are another man's oppressed minority.

Finally, guess who doesn't agree with you either? The reknowned gay-basher Peter Tatchell:

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/ashers-gay-cake-verdict-is-defeat-for-freedom-of-expression/

Deise Vu wrote: »

Name a work situation and I will give you an example. Printing? Gay marriage poster, religious fanatic graphic artist. Distribution ? Religious fanatic driver won't deliver gay posters. Bakery? (Ah, you probably could think of one yourself). And of course all of these situations hold for the reverse, Gay employee and religious customer.

These are all very simple: religious fanatic is refusing service to a customer on discriminatory grounds. Fire them.

Deise Vu wrote: »

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The Ashers are being forced to carry out work that is against their Christian beliefs. Forcing someone to act against their conscience is clearly fascist. Particularly when it is something as trivial as icing on a bloody cake. Earlier posters have compared this farce with Rosa Parks stance. That is an insult to Rosa Parks and every black person in the Southern States of the USA and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 50.

Name a work situation and I will give you an example. Printing? Gay marriage poster, religious fanatic graphic artist. Distribution ? Religious fanatic driver won't deliver gay posters. Bakery? (Ah, you probably could think of one yourself). And of course all of these situations hold for the reverse, Gay employee and religious customer.

And while you are making assumptions I am also going to assume that Agent Lee knew exactly what he was getting into when he went to Ashers. He knew exactly what reaction he would provoke. If he really wanted a cake (God, that just sounds so ridiculous) he would just have gone to one of the dozens of other bakeries who would have obliged, no problem. But no, he wanted the thrill of forcing what he perceives as bigots to be humiliated by agreeing to the request or else face the consequences of bad law. The problem of course has always been that one man's bigots are another man's oppressed minority.

Finally, guess who doesn't agree with you either? The reknowned gay-basher Peter Tatchell:

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/ashers-gay-cake-verdict-is-defeat-for-freedom-of-expression/

:rolleyes:
This is what I get for spending my time crafting a post that I hoped would result in some reasoned discussion. Fine so, carry on. It's fascism, the customer targeted them, yada, yada, yada...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

These are all very simple: religious fanatic is refusing service to a customer on discriminatory grounds. Fire them.

On the face of it, it looks even simpler than that. Employee is refusing to do their job; deal with them like you would any other employee.

Anyways, if Deise really is worried about rulings where an employer will be caught between a customer and employee (and I don't think he really is), there are plenty of other far more relevant rulings for him to consider.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How horrible!

What an awful concept..... Politicians must change this!

Which part of my post did you not understand? My problem is squaring the circle of religious beliefs which happen (with a scary amount of religions) to be anti gay. Everyone should be equal and no-one more equal than the others. Possibly you prefer the 'four legs good' philosophy but not me. But now the law is saying Gay rights have a higher standing than religious ones. I am genuinely puzzled how a supposedly oppressed minority can lord it over another one (via a cake!! You really couldn't think of a more First World Problem).

This is still going? It appears the only people left arguing over this verdict being unfair, are either people who do not understand the judicial system and laws of the North of Ireland and refuse to educate themselves. But it's predominantly religious fanatics with their knickers in a twist that their outdated beliefs are no longer accepted by the majority of people on this island. Unless you can point to something that the most senior judges have missed, then all your points are irrelevant.

dav3 wrote: »

This is still going? It appears the only people left arguing over this verdict being unfair, are either people who do not understand the judicial system and laws of the North of Ireland and refuse to educate themselves. But it's predominantly religious fanatics with their knickers in a twist that their outdated beliefs are no longer accepted by the majority of people on this island. Unless you can point to something that the most senior judges have missed, then all your points are irrelevant.

I take you you never heard of Peter Tatchell then?

But you know what, you are right to the extent that I am now asking myself why am I bothered? I'll take money off Gays and fanatics of any stripe providing it's legal. Why should I be concerned that there is probably a whole raft of of loony cults currently dreaming up ways they can wind up the gay community by targeting them with similarly loaded 'entirely innocent' orders.

I think I'll just stand back and order the popcorn instead.

A Little Pony wrote: »

What are you on about? A huge outcry in Ulster over this from many quarters who are for Gay marriage but value freedom of conscience more.

Many quarters = a few people who are having difficulty understanding the outcome. Freedom of conscience was covered in the ruling. What part do you have difficulties with?

Most people have moved on and accepted this ruling.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Veiled threats now!

It isn't veiled at all. How long do you think a bakery would last with a sign in the window saying "No Blacks or Taigs served"?

This stuff is illegal.

Deise Vu wrote: »

I take you you never heard of Peter Tatchell then?

But you know what, you are right to the extent that I am now asking myself why am I bothered? I'll take money off Gays and fanatics of any stripe providing it's legal. Why should I be concerned that there is probably a whole raft of of loony cults currently dreaming up ways they can wind up the gay community by targeting them with similarly loaded 'entirely innocent' orders.

I think I'll just stand back and order the popcorn instead.

Am I'm supposed to be impressed with the name Peter Tatchell? Is he the most senior judge in the North of Ireland?

I don't think you've read any of the judgements in this case.

Why don't you have a quick read and get back to us on which points you have difficulty with understanding.

Original judgement

Summary of Appeal Judgement

Guidance for Service Providers following the case of
Lee -v- Asher’s Baking Co Ltd and others [2015]