Go to first unread
Back
to top
'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery
Watch
Announcements
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
'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
11
reply
Report
#3
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
4
reply
(Original post by *Stefan*)
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
But yes this shouldn't have even got to court to decide if it was an issue in the first place and they should have just been prosecuted
2
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by *Stefan*)
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
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.
20
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by *Stefan*)
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
Well, I don't know if it's "fabulous news" or whatever (this shouldn't even be news!) but no one should be exempt from the law, religious or not. Since the law states that everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and orientation, that's how it should be. End of.
"We've said from the start that our issue was with the message on the cake, not with the customer and that we didn't know what the sexual orientation of Mr Lee was, and it wasn't relevant either."
I'd like to read the judgment - on the given facts it sounds like an incorrect decision to me. Not because I dislike the outcome, but because the reasoning seems flawed.
5
reply
Report
#7
Taking away more Liberty from Protestants in Ulster. The Loyalists see what the Liberals and Republicans are doing trying to destroy us and take away our ability to pass on our legacy to our children. This is a Puritan law and Puritans are enforcing it.
1
reply
Report
#8
I don't really see how this was discrimination. As previous posters have said, it had nothing to do with the sexuality of the person commissioning the cake.
At what point is it reasonable for a bakery to refuse to make a particular cake? Surely they're not required to make absolutely anything anyone asks of them?
At what point is it reasonable for a bakery to refuse to make a particular cake? Surely they're not required to make absolutely anything anyone asks of them?
10
reply
(Original post by HandmadeTurnip)
At what point is it reasonable for a bakery to refuse to make a particular cake? Surely they're not required to make absolutely anything anyone asks of them?
At what point is it reasonable for a bakery to refuse to make a particular cake? Surely they're not required to make absolutely anything anyone asks of them?
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by PopaPork)
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
0
reply
(Original post by william walker)
So you think they should be forced to serve a murder or rapist then?
So you think they should be forced to serve a murder or rapist then?
But yes if a customer wants a cake they should have to sell them a cake as they are after all in the business of selling cakes.
3
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by PopaPork)
How is that relevant to someone buying a cake?
But yes if a customer wants a cake they should have to sell them a cake as they are after all in the business of selling cakes.
How is that relevant to someone buying a cake?
But yes if a customer wants a cake they should have to sell them a cake as they are after all in the business of selling cakes.
5
reply
(Original post by william walker)
Part of that is living a live by their own morality and conscience.
Part of that is living a live by their own morality and conscience.
But this is a direct attack on bigotry which is why the bigots have such ruffled feathers
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by PopaPork)
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
If you owned a bakery, would you be happy making absolutely anything asked of you? What about if someone asked for a cake featuring a slogan opposing same-sex marriage? Or a cake shaped like a swastika?
I completely disagree with the bakery's refusal to make the cake but I do think businesses should have a right to accept or refuse jobs without interference from the government, as long as the customer themselves aren't being discriminated against in any way, which I don't think they were in this case.
7
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by PopaPork)
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
10
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by PopaPork)
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
But this is a direct attack on bigotry which is why the bigots have such ruffled feathers
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
But this is a direct attack on bigotry which is why the bigots have such ruffled feathers
What bigotry? Are these people ignorant of homosexuals, do they want to force homosexual to do anything. No they just want to left alone.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by PopaPork)
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
But this is a direct attack on bigotry which is why the bigots have such ruffled feathers
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
But this is a direct attack on bigotry which is why the bigots have such ruffled feathers
The baker had no problem selling cakes to anyone, his objection was to the special message that the customer requested be put on top of the cake.
This case is really not as clear cut as you seem to be implying since there are clearly two human rights in conflict here: freedom from discrimination vs freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
As the barrister for the bakery pointed out, this potentially sets a pretty awkward precedent. I haven't read the judgement but, on the face of it, this appears to mean that, for example, a Muslim printer would be unable to refuse to print Charlie Hebdo cartoons showing Muhammad, or a pacifist t-shirt seller would be unable to refuse to print an aggressively pro-Iraq War slogan on t-shirts.
Neither of the hypothetical people in those examples could ever have imagined that, when they entered into that line of work, they might be asked to do something that clashed so directly with their fundamental beliefs. Nevertheless, if they are asked to do so they must surely have a right to refuse, not because of any bigotry towards the customer, but because they are being asked to compromise their core beliefs by both writing, and then helping to spread, a message they do not agree with.
It's really not too much to ask for some reasonable accommodation here, but instead the judgement seems to send the message out that everyone has human rights but not all human rights are equal... although, that being said, it's perhaps a little too early to come to that conclusion without considering the judge's reasoning first.
16
reply
Report
#18
This is a clear attack on freedom of association and the idea that businesses have a right to refuse service.
I don't care about homosexuality and have no problem with it however we shouldn't sacrifice our freedoms especially for something so trivial as this.
I don't care about homosexuality and have no problem with it however we shouldn't sacrifice our freedoms especially for something so trivial as this.
1
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by B-FJL3)
Neither of the hypothetical people in those examples
Neither of the hypothetical people in those examples
1
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by william walker)
should the government force companies to serve murders and rapists?
should the government force companies to serve murders and rapists?
2
reply
X
Quick Reply
