'Gay cake' row (NI): Judge rules against Ashers Bakery

Watch
Lt.Hartigan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.

Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.

The judge said Ashers is "conducting a business for profit", and it is not a religious group.

The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.

Mr McArthur said he did not believe his bakery had done anything wrong and would be taking further legal advice after the ruling.

Speaking outside Belfast County Court after the ruling, Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur said his company was "extremely disappointed with the judgment".

The firm's general manager said they were "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and are considering an appeal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Disgusting...
The gay customer should be ashamed of himself for using the violence of the state to limit the free association of others.

It doesn't matter if you are upset. You have no right to enslave other people against their will and force them to comply with their wishes.
2
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Falcatas)
Disgusting...
The gay customer should be ashamed of himself for using the violence of the state
Ah yes, the typical libertarian whine about "men with guns" and "tax slavery" blah blah blah.

The gay customer was simply using a law that was passed by a parliament that is overwhelmingly heterosexual. It's interesting that the people who are complaining about this case show little interest in actually seeking to repeal the law in question.

You have no right to enslave other people
I think you are confused about the meaning of the word enslave
1
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by MatthewParis)
Ah yes, the typical libertarian whine about "men with guns" and "tax slavery" blah blah blah.

The gay customer was simply using a law that was passed by a parliament that is overwhelmingly heterosexual. It's interesting that the people who are complaining about this case show little interest in actually seeking to repeal the law in question.



I think you are confused about the meaning of the word enslave
Freedom of association means being able to choose whom and whom not you wish to associate with. On your own private property you should be able to set what ever rules you wish so long as to not harm or violate anyone else's property.

Harm here does not mean hurt feelings, but actual physical harm.

Religious people should been able to refuse service to any homosexual who wishes to do business with them.
Of course just as important is the converse. Any homosexual person should have the right to refuse services to any religious people if they so wish to.

Being forced to serve people you do not wish to is a form of slavery. Businesses open to the public are not public services or public property. They are private property and it should be solely up to the owners how they run their business.

People discriminate all the time. We do so in our friendships and personal lives so there is no reason why can't do so else where.

The state has no right to judge what form of discrimination is acceptable or isn't.
It is up to the individuals of a society to decide what type of discrimination is or isn't acceptable.

Those who support this awful law in the name of tolerance have ironically missed the point. We must tolerate people have different opinions and being able to live by them.
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Falcatas)
Freedom of association means being able to choose whom and whom not you wish to associate with. On your own private property you should be able to set what ever rules you wish so long as to not harm or violate anyone else's property.
These are rules that you are asserting, but society through its democratically-chosen representatives has decided to weigh the relevant considerations differently. It's also interesting that you say you should be able to do what you wish, as long as you do not harm; parliament has concluded that discrimination does harm other people and society as a whole

It is an entirely legitimate object of state policy to say that discrimination in the provision of goods and services is harmful, that it undermines society as a whole and therefore is justifiably the subject of regulation and prohibition

Being forced to serve people you do not wish to is a form of slavery
Actually, it's not a form of slavery, because there is no slave and no master. There's no such thing as "slave just for this one transaction"; what you are trying to do is force this episode into a definitional box into which it clearly doesn't fit, so you can use breathless, hysterical words like slavery that have little applicability to the situation at hand.

Part of the reason libertarians make little headway is because they use such hysterical words like slavery in situations like this. It is deeply damaging to your credibility.
1
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatthewParis)
These are rules that you are asserting, but society through its democratically-chosen representatives has decided to weigh the relevant considerations differently. It's also interesting that you say you should be able to do what you wish, as long as you do not harm; parliament has concluded that discrimination does harm other people and society as a whole

It is an entirely legitimate object of state policy to say that discrimination in the provision of goods and services is harmful, that it undermines society as a whole and therefore is justifiably the subject of regulation and prohibition



Actually, it's not a form of slavery, because there is no slave and no master. There's no such thing as "slave just for this one transaction"; what you are trying to do is force this episode into a definitional box into which it clearly doesn't fit, so you can use breathless, hysterical words like slavery that have little applicability to the situation at hand.

Part of the reason libertarians make little headway is because they use such hysterical words like slavery in situations like this. It is deeply damaging to your credibility.
Majority of opinion does not make it right. There is no such thing as the common good or anything like "undermining society". Societies do not think. Individual people think. Society being harmed is a meaningless statement. A society has no rights of its own. Individuals do however.

This flimsy definition of harm can be used to justify all drugs laws and could go even further such as banning alcohol and smoking. They certainly "harm society" don't they?
Should we ban people starting new businesses in case they harm current businesses by taking customers away from them?

Aggression is the initiation of force or violence which most people seem to agree on (although make an exception for the state). Discriminating against someone might not be very nice but it certainly isn't aggression. Forcing someone to do business with you by the threat of fines or jail is aggression however.

In a free society, discrimination would be regulated purely by the opinions of others.
If 90% thought discrimination against homosexuals is wrong they can do so and boycott any those who do discriminate against homosexuals. They do not however have the right to violent impose their will on the minority 10%. This minority 10% may be harmed from losing so much business but that is their own fault and they cannot force anyone to do business with them.

Also you are only favouring your preferred discrimination, which is against religious people. Will you stand up for white supremacists and neo nazis who are discriminated for their political beliefs?

The relation between the state and the individual is a weakened form of slavery, the state is the master and the individual is the slave. Perhaps they are nicer slave masters than traditional ones but they still own some our income without any permission.
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Falcatas)
If 90% thought discrimination against homosexuals is wrong they can do so and boycott any those who do discriminate against homosexuals. They do not however have the right to violent impose their will on the minority 10%.
My dear fellow, you are confused; homosexuals are not, nor would they be able to, impose their will on anyone.

This enactment was passed by parliament, which is overwhelmingly heterosexual, on behalf of a population that is overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Also you are only favouring your preferred discrimination, which is against religious people.
You just made that up, as it appeals to your vanity and prejudice. I oppose all unlawful discrimination; the law protects religious people from discrimination as much as it protects gay people.

The relation between the state and the individual is a weakened form of slavery
That's a nonsensical statement. Citizens are permitted to live where they choose, to do what work they choose, to have a say in how the state spends its recenue, etc. In other words, it's completely unlike slavery in pretty much every way.

Taxation is like rent, and legislation is like the rules agreed by a body corporate of an apartment complex; if you don't like the rates or the rules, you are entirely free to go live somewhere else.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatthewParis)
My dear fellow, you are confused; homosexuals are not, nor would they be able to, impose their will on anyone.

This enactment was passed by parliament, which is overwhelmingly heterosexual, on behalf of a population that is overwhelmingly heterosexual.
What? Homosexuals and heterosexuals don't think different because of their sexuality... Parliament is not a heterosexual parliament... It is just a parliament.
It doesn't work in the interest of heterosexuals if there even is such a thing (there isn't btw).

Limiting people to discriminate against whomever they want is imposing their will on others.



You just made that up, as it appeals to your vanity and prejudice. I oppose all unlawful discrimination; the law protects religious people from discrimination as much as it protects gay people.
Lol just wait when a gay couple discriminate against a Muslim see all the chaos that will ensue.
Doesn't the law say that discriminating against people for their political opinions is illegal too?
Will you oppose discrimination of neo nazis then?



That's a nonsensical statement. Citizens are permitted to live where they choose, to do what work they choose, to have a say in how the state spends its recenue, etc. In other words, it's completely unlike slavery in pretty much every way.
Having a say how the state spends revenue still disregards the fact you have to pay the state whether you like it or not.

Its like slaves being able to choose what bit of the plantation they want to work on that day. They may have some choice and freedom but certainly not much.

Taxation is like rent, and legislation is like the rules agreed by a body corporate of an apartment complex; if you don't like the rates or the rules, you are entirely free to go live somewhere else.

If Tesco started delivering shopping to your house without you asking for it and then charged you a bill would you object? If you didn't pay your bill, they would send people to force you to pay or otherwise kidnap you.

And before you say you say "this wasn't democratically chosen!", what if it was?
People voted and said you must pay for the Tesco goods regardless of whether you want them or not!
Well I guess you could move away if you didn't like the arrangement!

This is exactly what the state does. If it is fine for the state to do it why isn't it fine for Tesco to do it?
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
highly relevant

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/edwest/...ing-prejudice/
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Falcatas)
What? Homosexuals and heterosexuals don't think different because of their sexuality... Parliament is not a heterosexual parliament... It is just a parliament.
Which makes your claims that this is homosexuals who have somehow made this law particularly laughable.

Limiting people to discriminate against whomever they want is imposing their will on others.
I'm sorry but that is utterly incoherent. Can you please try to rephrase it in a way that is comprehensible?

Will you oppose discrimination of neo nazis then?
I oppose all unlawful discrimination.

Having a say how the state spends revenue still disregards the fact you have to pay the state whether you like it or not.
That's the same as council tax. If you don't like it, live somewhere else.

Its like slaves being able to choose what bit of the plantation they want to work on that day.
Orrrr... it's not like slavery at all.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by MatthewParis)
Which makes your claims that this is homosexuals who have somehow made this law particularly laughable.
I have never once inferred it was homosexuals that brought this law into existence.

Protections against race, sexuality and religion were all brought into together. I don't care who brought these laws in, they are unjust.


I oppose all unlawful discrimination.
Are you capable of making moral judgements on your own or do you need the state to help you?

Do you oppose the ability to take drugs because it is currently illegal?


That's the same as council tax. If you don't like it, live somewhere else.
My point still stands you never addressed why they have the authority to tax yet Tesco or other individuals don't.
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Falcatas)
My point still stands you never addressed why they have the authority to tax yet Tesco or other individuals don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

If you don't like the extant social contract in this country, you are certainly welcome to find another..? I hear Somalia has almost no government
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by MatthewParis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

If you don't like the extant social contract in this country, you are certainly welcome to find another..? I hear Somalia has almost no government

There is no such thing as the social contract. A valid contract is entered voluntarily.

And you continue to ignore my previous point. Why can't Tesco or some other business make a social contract?

If the social contract is a valid way to justify the existence of the state then it means social contracts are a valid form of contract for ANYONE.
I could just ship stuff to my neighbour and force him to pay me even if he wasn't interesting in goods.

Governments will violently oppose anyone else making their own 'social contracts'. Why would they do such thing if these types of contracts are valid?


As for Somalia, it was a failed third world state. Removing government will not solve all problems and I have never implied it would.

Regardless Somalia actually improved quite a bit without a centralised government.
Index 1991 2011 (or latest) Life expectancy 46 years 50 years Birth rate 46 44 Death rate 19 16 GDP per capita $210 $600 Infant mortality 116 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births 109 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births Access to safe water 35% 29% Adult literacy 24% 38% http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Falcatas)
There is no such thing as the social contract.
In your opinion. And an opinion that is, from where I'm sitting, patently wrong.

A valid contract is entered voluntarily.
Parents have the capacity to enter into contracts on behalf of their children.

And the law does not require subjective consent to a contract; it merely requires that the party in question to have so conducted themselves that the reasonable man would construe their behaviour as having bound them.

That is to say, by remaining in the United Kingdom, by enjoying the benefits of the contract, you are consenting to it and binding yourself to it. By voting, you are binding yourself. By taking part in party politics, you are binding yourself. By taking up paid employment, you are binding yourself

If you do not consent, then you are free to go elsewhere.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by MatthewParis)
In your opinion. And an opinion that is, from where I'm sitting, patently wrong.


And the law does not require subjective consent to a contract; it merely requires that the party in question to have so conducted themselves that the reasonable man would construe their behaviour as having bound them.
Again why can't individual make these types of contracts and what are you defining as "reasonable".

I've presented my arguments against and you can't even attempt to come up with any logical counterargument.

All you have is circular definitions and opinions because you sure as hell can't make any remotely philosophical argument in favour of your position.
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Falcatas)
Again why can't individual make these types of contracts and what are you defining as "reasonable".
An individual can and does make this contract with the state.

As to what is reasonable, I am using the legal definition of the reasonable man; the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus".

I've presented my arguments against and you can't even attempt to come up with any logical counterargument.

All you have is circular definitions and opinions because you sure as hell can't make any remotely philosophical argument in favour of your position.
I have very clearly outlined that you have contracted with the state, and the ways in which your consent is obtained.

The fact you're incapable of understanding basic legal principles is not my problem or fault. I offer something philosophical like the social contract, and you simply whine "There's no such thing as a social contract". That is not, as far as intelligent people are usually concerned, an "argument".
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by MatthewParis)
An individual can and does make this contract with the state.

As to what is reasonable, I am using the legal definition of the reasonable man; the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus".



I have very clearly outlined that you have contracted with the state, and the ways in which your consent is obtained.

The fact you're incapable of understanding basic legal principles is not my problem or fault. I offer something philosophical like the social contract, and you simply whine "There's no such thing as a social contract". That is not, as far as intelligent people are usually concerned, an "argument".
I have not whined, I have argued against the position.
I have shown the social contract is invalid. You offer no argument against my position.

The social contract is nonsense. You have no defence because you either know its nonsense or lack the capacity to produce any type of logical defence for it.

All you have to answer is :
Why can't we make social contracts with each other if it is a valid form of contract?
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Falcatas)
I have not whined, I have argued against the position.
I have shown the social contract is invalid.
You've done no such thing; simply saying "I don't accept the social contract" is not the same as making a valid, cogent argument against the concept.

You said that you did not consent to the social contract; I pointed out that, in law, your subjective consent is irrelevant. If you act in such a way that you are taken to have consented, then that "consent" is valid.

By behaving in such a way that you accept/benefit from/attempt to influence the state, you are accepting and consenting to the social contract.

An analogy would be if you go to an auction house, and people are raising their hand to indicate a bid; you raise your hand with the intention not to bid but to ask a question, but you find to your horror that this is taken as a bid, it is accepted and you have bought the item. Your intent there is irrelevant; by acting in such a way that a reasonable, objective observer would take you to have bid/consented to the contract, you are, in law, taken to have done so.

This is a perfectly good analogy for the social contract; if you behave in such a way as a reasonable observer would conclude you are accepting the social contract, you are interacting with the state, like voting, or paying taxes, or receiving services, you can reasonably be held to be consenting. In fact, by choosing to continue to live here, you can reasonably be taken to ave consented
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Falcatas)
Why can't we make social contracts with each other if it is a valid form of contract?
But you can make such a contract. However, it does not override your existing obligations to the overriding social contract to which one can construe your implied consent by your conduct in interacting with the state, and in continuing to live in the UK knowing that it involves such a social contract
0
reply
MatthewParis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Falcatas)
The social contract is nonsense
Do you think contracts should be enforaceable? I don't mean in the social contract sense; I mean, if you and I make a contract, and you breach it, should I be able to use a courts system to enforce it?
0
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

Do you think mandatory Relationships and Sex Education in secondary schools is a good idea?

Yes (358)
84.04%
No (68)
15.96%

Watched Threads

View All