Gay Cake Controversy!

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 11:12pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol
You might want to reference the exact act that you are quoting. All I can suggest is that you take it up with the Equality Commission and tell them you have sorted it for them and they are evidently wrong.

Ps Section B doesn't make any sense with what you have put forward as the 'solution'...

It's the equality act your EC letter is harping on about. It basically says that is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. Ashers would not have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality therefore no discrimination unless the EC can prove otherwise

Maybe read it for yourself http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/5/made

gozunda · 09-07-2014 11:20pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Show me this please. The bakery admitting that it was the sexuality of the customer and not the cake that was the reason they declined to make it.

Done that and It's all there several posts back. I'm not going over it again. If it's not clear I would suggest maybe contacting the EC in the north. They should be able to explain in the appropriate terminology.

Awkward Badger · 09-07-2014 11:25pm

gozunda wrote: »

Done that and It's all there several posts back. I'm not going over it again. If it's not clear I would suggest maybe contacting the EC in the north. They should be able to explain in the appropriate terminology.

I'd wager you're "not going over it all again" because there is no such thing. The bakery never admitted to discriminating against a customer because of their sexuality. And that their issue was solely in relation to the cake/order and not the customer or the customers sexuality.

I think you are taking the EC accusation as fact and then trying to bend all else around it. Problem is its not fact, its simply an accusation. And its an accusation which as far as I see has absolutely no foundation.

gozunda · 09-07-2014 11:27pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's the equality act your EC letter is harping on about. It basically says that is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. Ashers would not have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality therefore no discrimination unless the EC can prove otherwise

Maybe read it for yourself http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/5/made

Thanks I have but it is usual to reference any material quoted so someone who hasn't can check it out. However It still makes no sense in relation to your logic I'm afraid...

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 11:31pm

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks I have but it is usual to Terence any material quoted so someone who hasn't can check it out. However It still makes no sense in relation to your logic I'm afraid...

I'm not familiar with the term Terence but I will apologise for not making it clear what legislation I was quoting.

I'm using the logic of the legislation, you do know the difference between an order and the person who places the order don't you. If you'd rather believe the EC's botched interpretation of the legislation rather than the legislation itself there's no point arguing with you any further.

gozunda · 09-07-2014 11:51pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the term Terence but I will apologise for not making it clear what legislation I was quoting.

I'm using the logic of the legislation, you do know the difference between an order and the person who places the order don't you. If you'd rather believe the EC's botched interpretation of the legislation rather than the legislation itself there's no point arguing with you any further.

That of course should be 'reference'. The legislation doesn't have the 'logic' - it was your argument that I failed to fine any logic in relation to what you quoted. What you have abstracted is legislation. Legislation must be interpreted and as the EC employs specialists in this field - I really doubt that they have botched anything as you have put it...As I said maybe contact them and tell them you've worked it all out.

Bye

gozunda · 09-07-2014 11:54pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I'd wager you're "not going over it all again" because there is no such thing. The bakery never admitted to discriminating against a customer because of their sexuality. And that their issue was solely in relation to the cake/order and not the customer or the customers sexuality.

I think you are taking the EC accusation as fact and then trying to bend all else around it. Problem is its not fact, its simply an accusation. And its an accusation which as far as I see has absolutely no foundation.

If you check back it was a reply to one of your very own posts ... I really am amazed at the number of technical and legislative experts here. But you are of course welcome to your opinion. Enjoy.

Awkward Badger · 10-07-2014 12:14am

gozunda wrote: »

If you check back it was a reply to one of your very own posts ... I really am amazed at the number of technical and legislative experts here. But you are of course welcome to your opinion. Enjoy.

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

gozunda · 10-07-2014 12:20am

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

By the way - that's your wording - I may Used a different phrasing but It's there - sorry if you didn't follow it. The explanation is not as linear as you obviously think it should be. But anyway no matter. Though I do believe you are mixing up fact and your own personal belief which is not quite the same thing. Tbh if I had to place a bet on it I think I would go with the ECs interpretation of the relevant legislation. As I suggested you could always send your solution to the EC and see what they make of it. - they have a very good website...The matter is to proceed further for resolution so it will be interesting to see what the actual outcome will be.

floggg · 10-07-2014 12:22am

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

You are correct in saying there doesn't appear to be any determination as to whether there has been a breach. Despite the wording of the letter, they have only received a complaint which does not appear to be investigated yet.

You appear to be taking an over simplified view of discrimination, which suggests a lack of familiarity with how the legislation is applied. It is not entirely clear whether they have discriminated or not.

The could for example be found to be indirectly discriminating if they generally permit cakes which "advocate" for a particular cause, except for lgbt causes.

we arent in a position to know either way, as we don't know what policies or practise they have either way.

anybody saying its clear either way at this stage is talking through their arse.

Awkward Badger · 10-07-2014 12:27am

gozunda wrote: »

It's there - sorry if you didn't follow it. But anyway no matter. Though I do believe you are mixing up fact and your own personal belief which is not quite the same thing. Tbh if I had to place a bet on it I think I would go with the ECs interpretation of the relevant legislation. As I suggested you could always send your solution to the EC and see what they make of it. - they have a very good website...

If it was there you'd be able to show it. You're either lying or confused. Your repeated sarcastic tripe about experts and sending solutions to the EC after being asked to produce this admission of guilt would seem to indicate the former.

Awkward Badger · 10-07-2014 12:34am

floggg wrote: »

You are correct in saying there doesn't appear to be any determination as to whether there has been a breach. Despite the wording of the letter, they have only received a complaint which does not appear to be investigated yet.

I assume they have done all the investigating they are prepared to do given they have decided the bakery is guilty of discrimination and has requested the customer receive recompense or face legal action.

You appear to be taking an over simplified view of discrimination, which suggests a lack of familiarity with how the legislation is applied. It is not entirely clear whether they have discriminated or not.

I don't think I am taking an over simplified view of discrimination. As you say its not clear, therefore how can it be clear to the EC who have only received a complaint that it was the customers sexuality which resulted in the refusal of the service ?

The could for example be found to be indirectly discriminating if they generally permit cakes which "advocate" for a particular cause, except for lgbt causes.

The letter clearly states that they believe the bakery has discriminated against this particular customer based on his sexuality.

we arent in a position to know either way, as we don't know what policies or practise they have either way.

anybody saying its clear either way at this stage is talking through their arse.

We're in a position to know what happened and to know the EC has deemed it discrimination. And all I have said is that I don't see anything to suggest the bakery did discriminate against this customer because of his sexuality. Policies, practices, indirect discrimination against a cause does not equate to discrimination against an individual because of their sexuality which is what the bakery are accused of here.

gozunda · 10-07-2014 12:40am

Awkward Badger wrote: »

If it was there you'd be able to show it. You're either lying or confused. Your repeated sarcastic tripe about experts and sending solutions to the EC after being asked to produce this admission of guilt would seem to indicate the former.

Oh deary me. Your moniker is well suited. I f you don't understand what has been said I really can't help any further. I will ignore the accusations this time. Anyway you seem to be happy you have everything solved and wrapped up. Why would you not contact the EC if you are so certain? Best of luck anyways.

Jester252 · 10-07-2014 8:18am

gozunda wrote: »

That was the letter from the EC - they have stated that the bakery is in breach of legislation. Maybe take it up with them? But at the end of the day the bakery clearly refused the individuals order.

Without hearing from the bakery. They seemed to jump the gun with tge letter.

old hippy · 10-07-2014 9:47am

Jester252 wrote: »

I read the letter. Just because someone felt discriminated doesn't mean they were.

Except that they were discriminated against. Plain and simple.

dxhound2005 · 10-07-2014 9:47am

If I was a bakery owner in the North I would be quite happy to put Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas etc type messages on cakes. I would refuse to put Support a United Ireland, Oppose Orange Marches, Support Law and Order, Oppose Homosexuality, Support Gay Marriage or Oppose Gay Marriage on a cake. Or any other political message. I would not ask the customer to identify their race, religion or sexual orientation. Support Gay Marriage is a political slogan and no baker should be forced to put political slogans on cakes.

osarusan · 10-07-2014 9:48am

old hippy wrote: »

Except that they were discriminated against. Plain and simple.

How exactly?

old hippy · 10-07-2014 9:59am

osarusan wrote: »

How exactly?

By refusing to complete the customer's order under the guise of their religious beliefs. Beliefs which discriminate against gay people.

Ah; the religion of "tolerance".

From the BBC

"The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".

The customer placed the order in Ashers' Belfast branch a number of weeks ago, and it was then passed to their head office.

In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.

osarusan · 10-07-2014 10:02am

old hippy wrote: »

By refusing to complete the customer's order under the guise of their religious beliefs. Beliefs which discriminate against gay people.

Ah; the religion of "tolerance".

Under the guise?

gozunda · 10-07-2014 10:07am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If I was a bakery owner in the North I would be quite happy to put Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas etc type messages on cakes. I would refuse to put Support a United Ireland, Oppose Orange Marches, Support Law and Order, Oppose Homosexuality, Support Gay Marriage or Oppose Gay Marriage on a cake. Or any other political message. I would not ask the customer to identify their race, religion or sexual orientation. Support Gay Marriage is a political slogan and no baker should be forced to put political slogans on cakes.

Still doesn't understand what 'political' means ....

dxhound2005 · 10-07-2014 10:16am

gozunda wrote: »

Still doesn't understand what 'political' means ....

In the parliament in Northern Ireland a motion was proposed to legalise Same Sex Marriage. Three times. It was voted down three times. There is a political campaign going on. The message on the cake was in support of that political campaign. Some people in the campaign say it is a human rights issue. But marriage is not a right granted to all humans everywhere. Who is allowed to get married is subject to the law. The law is made in parliament. That is why it is "political".

I hope that makes it clear for you.

Annasopra · 10-07-2014 10:18am

floggg wrote: »

anybody saying its clear either way at this stage is talking through their arse.

Exactly

old hippy · 10-07-2014 10:41am

osarusan wrote: »

Under the guise?

Yes. Discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

SpaceTime · 10-07-2014 10:44am

old hippy wrote: »

Yes. Discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

That's kind of one of Northern Ireland's most cherished traditions though along with flag waving and rioting.

osarusan · 10-07-2014 10:44am

old hippy wrote: »

Yes. Discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Surely, in your opinion, it is the relgious beliefs themself which cause the discrimination? Rather than discrimination for other reasons being cloaked in religious beliefs.

ebbsy · 10-07-2014 10:45am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly

+1

What is important is your own beliefs, without having to play the discrimination card.

gozunda · 10-07-2014 10:47am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In the parliament in Northern Ireland a motion was proposed to legalise Same Sex Marriage. Three times. It was voted down three times. There is a political campaign going on. The message on the cake was in support of that political campaign. Some people in the campaign say it is a human rights issue. But marriage is not a right granted to all humans everywhere. Who is allowed to get married is subject to the law. The law is made in parliament. That is why it is "political".

I hope that makes it clear for you.

Mixing up random facts won't help. What 'political' means has been patiently explained previously on this thread. If you wish to not understand. I can't help you.

old hippy · 10-07-2014 10:56am

osarusan wrote: »

Surely, in your opinion, it is the relgious beliefs themself which cause the discrimination? Rather than discrimination for other reasons being cloaked in religious beliefs.

Mr McArthur added: "I would like the outcome of this to be that, any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of their business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that."

Translation - "we should allow to discriminate as we see fit based on an archaic collection of tales that have no bearing on modern life"

dxhound2005 · 10-07-2014 10:57am

gozunda wrote: »

Mixing up random facts won't help. What 'political' means has been patiently explained previously on this thread. If you wish to not understand. I can't help you.

I didn't see that but I don't need your help to understand what political means. It means to do with politics. There is a political campaign going on in Northern Ireland in favour of the introduction of Same Sex Marriage. It has reached the floor of their Parliament. What could be more political than that?

osarusan · 10-07-2014 10:59am

old hippy wrote: »

Translation - "we should allow to discriminate as we see fit based on an archaic collection of tales that have no bearing on modern life"

Who did they discriminate against?

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments