'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery

We won't don't worry about that.

Yes it's his choice to be a baker

If he's exposed to thing he's unhappy with (like baking cakes) he can choose not to be a Baker

But no still a student studying for my Degree what about you?

Firstly, there may have not been hatred, but it was discrimination. Whether it goes against their beliefs is irrelevant. They are bound by law.

You cannot compare one with the other. Asking a Muslim to print a picture of their prophet is obviously insulting to them -directly. It's like someone laughs at their faces. On the other hand, asking for a "pro-gay" cake does neither of the two. They didn't ask for the baker to agree with their message nor does it actually affect the baker himself, in any way, shape or form. The only reason the baker refused is because, well, he discriminated the couple.

Like what? Something like pro-ISIS? And you'd do well, because that is illegal. But because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean you can refuse service (unless it gets personal, in which case you should call the police).

Posted from TSR Mobile

And yet you still think he should be allowed to refuse based on that? How does that make any logical sense?

The hypotheticals clarify the issue: that the reason for the refusal to perform the service was not on the grounds of the customer's sexuality, or of his political beliefs, but on the grounds of the message he wanted on the cake. The bakery was fine selling him anything else.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter whether he was gay or straight, or what his political intentions were. The whole point is that it was nothing personal. His characteristics or beliefs were not the basis for the bakery's decision, and the consequences of their decision were no different for him than they would have been for anyone trying to get the same cake who did not share his sexuality or beliefs. As a result, their decision was neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory.

Firstly, there may have not been hatred, but it was discrimination. Whether it goes against their beliefs is irrelevant. They are bound by law.

You cannot compare one with the other. Asking a Muslim to print a picture of their prophet is obviously insulting to them -directly. It's like someone laughs at their faces. On the other hand, asking for a "pro-gay" cake does neither of the two. They didn't ask for the baker to agree with their message nor does it actually affect the baker himself, in any way, shape or form. The only reason the baker refused is because, well, he discriminated the couple.

Like what? Something like pro-ISIS? And you'd do well, because that is illegal. But because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean you can refuse service (unless it gets personal, in which case you should call the police).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Many muslims do not sell alcohol because it is against their religious beliefs, despite it not directly affecting them? Just because it doesn't directly affect you, does not mean you must be silent. There are several conflicts in the world that have nothing to do with me, but I still have views concerning them. The thing is you do not understand they were not discriminated against. If I went to the baker and asked them to bake a cake saying something along the lines of Islam is the only true religion and they refused due to their religious convictions what would happen? Nothing, because it clearly goes against their religious convictions and beliefs. Even if they had baked the cake with Islam is the only true religion on it, they would have felt it was against their views. The same applies here. Would the muslim who asked for the cake be discriminated against? No...

For the last time, the cake was not refused because the customer was gay. You must understand that.

It's like the incident where a Muslim refused to sell pork to someone in Tesco. Surely you can't think this is right?

Out of interest, if (hypothetically, again) some baker somewhere was asked to put an anti-gay-marriage message on a cake, what would you expect of him or her?

You have do understand how uncomfortable the Muslim would have felt selling the pork. The customer should accept this and move to another checkout.

Well, that is very wrong. Muslims have the right to not consume alcohol - they can't impose this on others.

It's like the incident where a Muslim refused to sell pork to someone in Tesco. Surely you can't think this is right?

What do you mean they were not discriminated against? Because they refused due to their religion doesn't mean it's not discrimination. Let's not make such claims.

A Muslim asking for a cake saying "Islam is the true religion" is actually insulting to the Christian baker, because it claims that the baker's beliefs are false - again, directly.

The "pro-gay" cake, again, doesn't do so. It's not like the couple wanted a Christian marriage or wanted the baker to know that his beliefs are wrong. It wanted a cake for their own sake, which does not affect the baker at all.

Don't confuse going against their beliefs with actually doing the action. I don't like smokers at ALL. I feel dizzy being around one. Does that mean I get the right to say "get the hell out of here"? Of course not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

'A Belfast judge said Ashers were not exempt from discrimination law.

Ashers are "conducting a business for profit", they are not a religious group, the judge said.

They were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation.'

This is good news and a step in the right direction

You have do understand how uncomfortable the Muslim would have felt selling the pork. The customer should accept this and move to another checkout.

You have do understand how uncomfortable the Muslim would have felt selling the pork. The customer should accept this and move to another checkout.

But they don't really clarify the issue at all. The discrimination didn't need to be on the customer's sexuality or his political beliefs per se. It could have been based on his association with those of a certain sexuality or of certain political beliefs.

Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily need to be the customer's own religious beliefs or political opinions which were the cause of discrimination - it could be the bakers.

In this case I can see where people are coming from, but I think that if the baker had (for instance) refused to bake a cake with a photo of a black person on the front (even if they are happy to serve black customers), we'd have no problems saying it's an example of racism. I don't really see why it should be any different to refuse to bake a cake with a gay slogan on the front. Baking a cake isn't being forced to assimilate something into your own belief system, it's just baking a cake.

The muslim who was working in tescos shouldn't have worked there in the first place if their policy was clear that you had to serve things that he may deem unislamic so for that case it was wrong because he had decided to work in a supermarket, knowing what was expected of him but went against the rules. The same does not apply here as it is a family run business therefore they say what they bake and don't bake.

Oh ok. So you yourself support or agree with not printing something along the lines of Islam is the right religion if the bakers were christian, saying it directly goes against their views? Not really. It doesn't say Christianity is the wrong religion therefore it "indirectly" goes against their views. Just like the concept of gay marriage went against the views of the couple. Also I think it is quite ironic that you distinguish between direct offense and indirect offense. They are both offensive at the end of the day... Any finally the fact that you say it doesn't affect them is true... Just like printing islam is the true religion doesn't directly affect them. Hypocricy much? Or do you just believe that it is fine to take offence to certain things on your own basis?