'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Of course, but that's not the question here.

The bakery did not discriminate against Mr Lee on the grounds of his sexuality, only on the grounds of his political beliefs. Had a straight couple come in to ask for the same message it would have refused them as well, and had Mr Lee come in to ask for a different, non-controversial message it would have agreed.

I'd like to see what justifications the judge has for this verdict.

Why should the customers beliefs be priority over the seller's beliefs?

Why should the customers beliefs be priority over the seller's beliefs?

As a gay person who supports gay rights all I can say is thankfully your opinion doesn't count.

as my OP states I'm happy with the result but saddened that this forum has so many people who would support discrimination against me because of my sexuality and desire for equity

I agree that the evidence supports the idea that this is not anti-homosexual discrimination, and that the judge got that wrong. However, do you agree that the judgement might be right (in NI, where discrimination on the grounds of political belief is illegal), but on the wrong grounds. Surely a stance in favour of gay marriage is a political belief, and the cake message expressed it?

So I'd argue that they didn't discriminate on political beliefs either.

I agree that the evidence supports the idea that this is not anti-homosexual discrimination, and that the judge got that wrong. However, do you agree that the judgement might be right (in NI, where discrimination on the grounds of political belief is illegal), but on the wrong grounds. Surely a stance in favour of gay marriage is a political belief, and the cake message expressed it?

I wouldn't agree, because the bakery still did not refuse to make the cake because of the nature of the customer or his beliefs, but because of the nature of the cake.

They did if, in NI, they stopped the buyer from expressing that belief through the cake message when they didn't stop other political beliefs from being expressed (which is clearly the case).

Incorrect. Assuming it is a limited company, as a matter of law, the directors are considered the 'controlling minds'. If it is a partnership, they are not a separate entity.

Businesses do have political opinions. A company is just a medium/legal construct through which people come together. Nothing more/less.

Jesus Christ. Some of my closest friends are gay. I support gay marriage. None of that is relevant.

I am not asking you to take me seriously as an authority. I don't just have 'an opinion' based on nothing but feels. I have legal qualifications, I have read the law on this and I think the judge got it wrong. But well done on refusing to engage with anything I have said other than my conclusion.

The Gypsy example shows you don't understand the argument here. This case is not like trying to enter a club and being refused based on ethnic grounds. This is like entering a club and demanding an Old Fashioned at the bar when they're not on the menu.

Again, they didn't deny him service. They entered talks about what kind of cake he wanted and only refused to make the cake when he later returned with the image he wanted on it. This suggests that they were quite prepared to serve him, and that it was the particular cake he wanted that they took issue with.

Yes it is relevant you are supporting peoples right to deny me and my opinions equal treatment

But someone who opposes gay marriage could theoretically ask for a "support gay marriage" cake. They wouldn't get one made either.

Equally, someone who supports gay marriage could get served a plain cake. So I don't personally think that is discrimination due to political opinion. I can see why some people would think it is though.

It isn't illegal to oppose gay marriage, it's illegal for the shop to treat someone differently due to their support for gay marriage. As nobody would get that cake made, regardless of their support for gay marriage or lack thereof, I don't think it was discrimination.

They chose to go to that cake shop, knowing that the owners were religious. It just sounds like they were looking for trouble.

But this is what you are arguing for you are saying the rights of the baker are more important than the rights of the customer.

Sadly there are to many bigots for this to work fairly

So what in Brownlie's judgement would allow a bakery to refuse to make it?

...so the declarations in the human rights act are meaningless....

...to use a favourite "argument" of the homosexual lobby, as to why they should not be judged for their behaviour, this reaction is natural.

As the judge said "It was a contract for a commercial business to bake and ice a cake.....the plaintiff was not seeking support nor endorsement."

He isn't supporting anything, and neither am I. We are simply analysing a legal decision and commenting on whether we think it matches the law it was based on. That is all.

In the same way we might analyse whether a murder conviction was justified, without intending to support murderers in their attempt to escape justice.