'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Watch
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
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
11
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Fabulous news.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#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
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(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.
It's fabulous news because it undermines the right for the faithful to use their faith as a excuse for their bigotry.

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
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#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.
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.
20
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#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.
As a previous commenter said, they didn't refuse to serve him because he was gay. They refused to make a particular cake.

"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
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#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
HandmadeTurnip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#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?
10
reply
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(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?
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by PopaPork)
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
So you think they should be forced to serve a murder or rapist then?
0
reply
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by william walker)
So you think they should be forced to serve a murder or rapist then?
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.
3
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#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.
They are in business to support themselves and their family. Part of that is living a live by their own morality and conscience. Rather than the governments. This is a direct attack on the Liberty of the family.
5
reply
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by william walker)
Part of that is living a live by their own morality and conscience.
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
0
reply
HandmadeTurnip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by PopaPork)
Why should a baker who's job it is to bake things refuse to bake a cake?
If they're self-employed, surely they don't owe anyone anything? They're not providing a municipal service, it's purely a capitalist venture. If the owner was to decide they didn't feel like opening up one day, do you think they should be forced to, seeing as they're a baker and it's their job to be there to bake things for people?

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
TurboCretin
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by PopaPork)
Nope as this case demonstrates (don't want to sell cakes then don't start a company selling cakes)
Er, what? The public can't demand of a company what kind of services it will or won't provide.
10
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#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
No this is the government saying you have to serve someone. So should the government force companies to serve murders and rapists?

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
B-FJL3
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#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

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
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#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.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by B-FJL3)
Neither of the hypothetical people in those examples
Surely the point is that the baker is a hypothetical person. In fact the refusal was made by a company and, not being human, has no human rights. The customer, on the other hand, was human.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by william walker)
should the government force companies to serve murders and rapists?
You are so vindictive and vengeful that you would deny a murder who is out on licence the food to sustain him? I thought you were a Christian.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (147)
15.67%
Uncertainty around my education (154)
16.42%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (88)
9.38%
Isolating with family (65)
6.93%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (34)
3.62%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (82)
8.74%
Loneliness (95)
10.13%
Financial worries (39)
4.16%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (85)
9.06%
Exposure to negative news/social media (64)
6.82%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (85)
9.06%

Watched Threads

View All