Bakers Lose 'Gay Cake' Appeal

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

It's an interesting case. Wonder how the courts would have acted had it been a gay baker refusing to bake a cake with a message saying 'Don't support gay marriage'.

[oldbutdim]

Has anyone made a pathetic reference to "a fairy cake" yet or am I the first?

[Scouse Hibee]

What a load of nonsense,fairy cakes and puff pastry will be outlawed soon.

[danhibees1875]

Whilst I completely disagree with the opinions held by the owners of the bakery about religion and homosexuality - I do think they should be allowed to choose their customers/jobs as they desire.

If I was running a good bakery and was quite busy with orders and someone asked me to make a Hearts cake - I could say no on those grounds of I wanted.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Whilst I completely disagree with the opinions held by the owners of the bakery about religion and homosexuality - I do think they should be allowed to choose their customers/jobs as they desire.

If I was running a good bakery and was quite busy with orders and someone asked me to make a Hearts cake - I could say no on those grounds of I wanted.

:agree: Exactly, if I owned a bakery and somebody asked me to bake a Hearts cake, or a Vote Tory cake, better together cake etc. I would (politely) refuse.

[Hibbyradge]

Whilst I completely disagree with the opinions held by the owners of the bakery about religion and homosexuality - I do think they should be allowed to choose their customers/jobs as they desire.

If I was running a good bakery and was quite busy with orders and someone asked me to make a Hearts cake - I could say no on those grounds of I wanted.

It's not illegal to discriminate on grounds of football allegiance.

[beensaidbefore]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

It's an interesting case. Wonder how the courts would have acted had it been a gay baker refusing to bake a cake with a message saying 'Don't support gay marriage'.

It is a funny one. As I understand it, there are laws against religious intolerance. There are also laws to protect lgbt people from intolerance. If I am saying your beliefs are a load of ****, surely that works both ways?

[Pete]

I used to think that Bert and Ernie were just pals who shared a bed.

[RyeSloan]

:agree: Exactly, if I owned a bakery and somebody asked me to bake a Hearts cake, or a Vote Tory cake, better together cake etc. I would (politely) refuse.

The judgement is quite clear though that it was the matter of sexual orientation that resulted in the cancellation of the order and that the law defends those orientations from being discriminated against.

As far as I am aware there is no such law protecting political or sporting allegiance.

The more pertinent question is maybe if the complainant was directly discriminated against because he was gay...seems to me the cake shop didn't like the message so said no on those grounds, not on the fact that the complainant was gay.

[danhibees1875]

It's not illegal to discriminate on grounds of football allegiance.

Fair enough. I maybe shouldn't have made that comparison.

I just don't think they should be forced to write something they don't wish to write - no matter how backwards their thinking on the matter is.

[Sir David Gray]

The ruling is a disgrace and an affront to freedom of thought and expression.

The couple are quite right to take the appeal to a higher court.

[GlesgaeHibby]

The judgement is quite clear though that it was the matter of sexual orientation that resulted in the cancellation of the order and that the law defends those orientations from being discriminated against.

As far as I am aware there is no such law protecting political or sporting allegiance.

The more pertinent question is maybe if the complainant was directly discriminated against because he was gay...seems to me the cake shop didn't like the message so said no on those grounds, not on the fact that the complainant was gay.

I guess you could argue it was a political statement though, as was the case not to the fore at the time Ireland had a referendum on gay marriage?It's quite clear which way the Bakers were voting, so why should they have to bake a cake promoting something they were going to the ballot box to vote against?

Agree on your last point - they refused sale on the content of message, not because the complainant was gay - as evidenced from their comments today:

"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.
Jump media player (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681)
Media player help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/online/mp_accessibility_help)

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681#afterFlash)


Media caption'Gay cake' case: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."

[Mr White]

I guess you could argue it was a political statement though, as was the case not to the fore at the time Ireland had a referendum on gay marriage?It's quite clear which way the Bakers were voting, so why should they have to bake a cake promoting something they were going to the ballot box to vote against?

Agree on your last point - they refused sale on the content of message, not because the complainant was gay - as evidenced from their comments today:

"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.
Jump media player (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681)
Media player help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/online/mp_accessibility_help)

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681#afterFlash)


Media caption'Gay cake' case: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."

The bakers are from Northern Ireland, the vote was in ROI only. The issue of gay marriage is a difficult one in NI. Not only does it highlight the fact that the region is now officially the most bigoted part of the British Isles, it also shows that religion is like a horrible weight stopping real progression in society over here.

I've heard a few people here say they think the couple have been set up to highlight the issue and it wouldn't surprise me.

[Colr]

Whilst I completely disagree with the opinions held by the owners of the bakery about religion and homosexuality - I do think they should be allowed to choose their customers/jobs as they desire.

If I was running a good bakery and was quite busy with orders and someone asked me to make a Hearts cake - I could say no on those grounds of I wanted.

So they could refuse black customers, then?

[Colr]

I used to think that Bert and Ernie were just pals who shared a bed.

Just like Eric and Ernie.

What is it about Ernies?

[Speedy]

So they could refuse black customers, then?

It's not quite as simple as that though.

This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.

[Sergio sledge]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html

[Colr]

It's not quite as simple as that though.

This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.

Presumably they would be fine about a Muslim shop worker refusing to serve them their bacon.

[easty]

It's not quite as simple as that though.

This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.

Is it about their beliefs though? A cake making business doesn't automatically support/believe the messages they put on their cakes. They could easily have made the cake, but held on to their belief that gay marriage is wrong. Making the cake wouldn't have automatically signed them up to a LGBT support association.

[Pretty Boy]

It's a tricky one.

On the one hand as a supporter of marriage equality my natural inclination is to have absolutely no sympathy for the bakery.

On the othrr hand is there any proof, or even suggestion, that they refused to serve this customer on the basis of his sexuality? Ultimately 'support gay marriage' is a political statement and if it's a stance the bakery opposes surely they have the right to refuse to promote it? No matter how small the impact would be (and arguably it's had a far bigger impact with them refusing the job).

Whilst I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against based on their sexuality I'm not sure that is the case here. As far as I can tell the customer wasn't refused service because he happened to be gay, I'd wager the bakery knowingly and unknowingly serves gay people every single day, but rather because they were being asked to promote a politcal viewpoint they disagreed with.

[the_ginger_hibee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

[Peevemor]

It's a tricky one.

On the one hand as a supporter of marriage equality my natural inclination is to have absolutely no sympathy for the bakery.

On the othrr hand is there any proof, or even suggestion, that they refused to serve this customer on the basis of his sexuality? Ultimately 'support gay marriage' is a political statement and if it's a stance the bakery opposes surely they have the right to refuse to promote it? No matter how small the impact would be (and arguably it's had a far bigger impact with them refusing the job).

Whilst I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against based on their sexuality I'm not sure that is the case here. As far as I can tell the customer wasn't refused service because he happened to be gay, I'd wager the bakery knowingly and unknowingly serves gay people every single day, but rather because they were being asked to promote a politcal viewpoint they disagreed with.

That's exactly how I see it.

I wonder if this happened by coincidence or whether the baker's stance was known and he was targetted as a result.

[Mr White]

I wonder if this happened by coincidence or whether the baker's stance was known and he was targetted as a result.
That has been suggested frequently over here since the story first broke last year.

[Peevemor]

That has been suggested frequently over here since the story first broke last year.

If that's the case then it's a pity that they didn't use their time, money and energy to promote their cause in a positive way instead of looking for confrontation, which can only lead to further polarisation.

[Mr White]

If that's the case then it's a pity that they didn't use their time, money and energy to promote their cause in a positive way instead of looking for confrontation, which can only lead to further polarisation.

That's a fair point. I do feel LGBT activists in NI have every right to feel aggrieved at the provence being the only part of the UK and Ireland where same sex couples can't marry, though I agree re the confrontation aspect and also if this was a deliberate act then it was unfair on the couple running the bakery.

Though on the other hand they've drawn attention to the reason why NI is now officially the most bigoted part of these isles (enshrined in law on this particular subject): religion and it's disproportionate hold over policy and society in general in Northern Ireland.

[Hibbyradge]

Presumably they would be fine about a Muslim shop worker refusing to serve them their bacon.

I don't think your analogy works.

Why would the Muslim shopkeeper stock bacon in the first place if he wasn't going to sell ut? :confused:

If he stocked something, butvrefused to sell ut to a customer because they were, say Catholic, that could be an offence.

[Hibbyradge]

If that's the case then it's a pity that they didn't use their time, money and energy to promote their cause in a positive way instead of looking for confrontation, which can only lead to further polarisation.

I disagre, Peev. I think they've done a power if good for their cause, whether or not it was a deliberate ploy.

They've succeeded in promoting their own rights in law.

They also have the BBC and world media discussing the issue of LGBT rights in NI.

Oh, and if they did pick on homophobes deliberately, good.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's a fair point. I do feel LGBT activists in NI have every right to feel aggrieved at the provence being the only part of the UK and Ireland where same sex couples can't marry, though I agree re the confrontation aspect and also if this was a deliberate act then it was unfair on the couple running the bakery.

Though on the other hand they've drawn attention to the reason why NI is now officially the most bigoted part of these isles (enshrined in law on this particular subject): religion and it's disproportionate hold over policy and society in general in Northern Ireland.

... and the only place in the UK where it's illegal to buy sex.:agree:

[Peevemor]

I disagre, Peev. I think they've done a power if good for their cause, whether or not it was a deliberate ploy.

They've succeeded in promoting their own rights in law.

They also have the BBC and world media discussing the issue of LGBT rights in NI.

Oh, and if they did pick on homophobes deliberately, good.

I don't think you have to be homophobic to be against gay marriage. There are people who have no ill feeling toward homosexuals but have certain views on what marriage is about.

I know gays who, in this day of legally reckognised civil unions, aren't fussed about the marriage thing.

[Hibbyradge]

I don't think you have to be homophobic to be against gay marriage. There are people who have no ill feeling toward homosexuals but have certain views on what marriage is about.

I know gays who, in this day of legally reckognised civil unions, aren't fussed about the marriage thing.

Fair enough. I would disagree with them, but they have the right to an opinion.

I don't know what the bakers attitudes are, but I do believe that what the guy who ordered the cake did gave the issue much more publicity than if they'd campaigned another way.

[CapitalGreen]

I don't think your analogy works.

Why would the Muslim shopkeeper stock bacon in the first place if he wasn't going to sell ut? :confused:

If he stocked something, butvrefused to sell ut to a customer because they were, say Catholic, that could be an offence.

You have read shopkeeper where he has written shop worker.

[Hibbyradge]

You have read shopkeeper where he has written shop worker.

Ah, yes I did. :doh:

There have been incidents like that, but I can't remember the outcones.

[RyeSloan]

Ah, yes I did. :doh:

There have been incidents like that, but I can't remember the outcones.

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think [emoji12]

[Hibbyradge]

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think [emoji12]

Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.

[Bishop Hibee]

Peter Tatchell disagrees with the ruling and so do I http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html

[Speedy]

Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.

Hypothetically there could be a day where all staff on duty are Muslim.

[Speedy]

Is it about their beliefs though? A cake making business doesn't automatically support/believe the messages they put on their cakes. They could easily have made the cake, but held on to their belief that gay marriage is wrong. Making the cake wouldn't have automatically signed them up to a LGBT support association.

They could have made the cake but that may have put them in a moral quandary. (I don't know, you'd need to ask them)

It seems very strange that it is deemed illegal to refuse to provide a cake promoting gay marriage in a country in which gay marriage isn't legal.

[Mr White]

It seems very strange that it is deemed illegal to refuse to provide a cake promoting gay marriage in a country in which gay marriage isn't legal.

Indeed. But then it's a very strange place.

[Hibbyradge]

Hypothetically there could be a day where all staff on duty are Muslim.

That would be very poor management, but it wouldn't be discrimunstory.

[RyeSloan]

Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.

Yeah that was what I was trying to say [emoji12]

[Colr]

Peter Tatchell disagrees with the ruling and so do I http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html

If they didn't taken themselves so seriously, they could use the publicity to make this a product line!!

[Speedy]

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think [emoji12]

The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?

[NYHibby]

It's not quite as simple as that though.

This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

[NYHibby]

The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?

Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"

[Pretty Boy]

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?

[Danderhall Hibs]

That would be very poor management, but it wouldn't be discrimunstory.

What if all the best candidates for the job were Muslim? Should he pick his 2nd choice cos they're Christian?

[Speedy]

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

The fact it is getting so much discussion suggests it is indeed interesting.

[Speedy]

Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"

I wasn't comparing entire cases. The point is that one suggests that providing certain products can conflict with religious belief, the other doesn't. Which is it?

[NYHibby]

I wasn't comparing entire cases. The point is that one suggests that providing certain products can conflict with religious belief, the other doesn't. Which is it?

Ugh, if you're not comparing cases, what is your second sentence doing?

As I said in my posts, this cases doesn't "suggest" what you are implying that it does. Your question is based on a couple of logical fallacies.

[Hibbyradge]

What if all the best candidates for the job were Muslim? Should he pick his 2nd choice cos they're Christian?

They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

[Speedy]

Ugh, if you're not comparing cases, what is your second sentence doing?

As I said in my posts, this cases doesn't "suggest" what you are implying that it does. Your question is based on a couple of logical fallacies.

"Entire"

[NYHibby]

Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?

From the summary of the lower court's decision:
"The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondent’s religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion."

I would say that the judgement is not dependent on the sexuality of the person ordering the cake.

[Danderhall Hibs]

They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

:hilarious

[Hibbyradge]

:hilarious

What's funny? :confused:

[Future17]

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

The case is about a clash of beliefs, as is the majority of the related publicity; it is just the Judgment that is not.

Judges shouldn't be making the law; they should be interpreting it and, to an extent, enforcing it (for want of a better word). That's what has happened here and is what happens in the vast majority of civil cases. Often disputes which appear to be finely balanced morally (or in the application of "common sense") are decided based on how the law is written and interpreted. This is why we rely so heavily on civil servants and, to a lesser extent, their political masters.

[Scouse Hibee]

They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

What if they converted after you had employed them? :-)

[Hibbyradge]

What if they converted after you had employed them? :-)

:hilarious

Wasn't there a ruling that said employers should try to make reasonable steps to respect employees' religious beliefs, but if there was no alternatives, the employee would have to comply?

If a doctor in an abortion clinic conveted to a faith which was pro-life, the doctor would need to leave or be dismissed.

I'm home sick today hence why I'm entertaining all these hypothetical and highly unlikely scenarios. 😷

[Peevemor]

:hilarious

Wasn't there a ruling that said employers should try to make reasonable steps to respect employees' religious beliefs, but if there was no alternatives, the employee would have to comply?

If a doctor in an abortion clinic conveted to a faith which was pro-life, the doctor would need to leave or be dismissed.

I'm home sick today hence why I'm entertaining all these hypothetical and highly unlikely scenarios. 😷

When I was still in Edinburgh, we had a guy who worked with us who was a born again christian. He was a great wee guy but was really into the God thing, to the extent that he refused to tell a lie.

At times it was a real pest- eg. if he answered a call that you didn't want to take, he wouldn't palm the caller off with even the whitest of lies (on another line, in a meeting, etc.).

It obviously wouldn't have been a valid reason for dismissal though. :greengrin

[steakbake]

They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

I'm pretty sure you'd find a Muslim or Jewish person who would sell bacon or alcohol. Certainly in the case of the former, there's plenty of examples I can think of where the business owner is unlikely to use the ingredients for his own consumption, but will sell it.

[beensaidbefore]

Hypothetically speaking, should the situation arise where a Christian organisation approached a 'gay bar' to display a pro same sex marriage poster or leaflets etc, would they have any grounds to refuse to display said poster along side their other posters/leaflets? If they refused to display it due to disagreeing with the message, would they be guilty of discrimination?

[Hibbyradge]

Hypothetically speaking, should the situation arise where a Christian organisation approached a 'gay bar' to display a pro same sex marriage poster or leaflets etc, would they have any grounds to refuse to display said poster along side their other posters/leaflets? If they refused to display it due to disagreeing with the message, would they be guilty of discrimination?

I think bars and shops can refuse to display posters etc without reason.

The bar isn't selling a poster display service.

Also, same sex marriage is already legal and well established. I assume that any pro same sex marriage poster would also have an anti gay marriage message so the gay bar would be well within their right to tell them to do one.

[Hibrandenburg]

Hypothetically speaking, should the situation arise where a Christian organisation approached a 'gay bar' to display a pro same sex marriage poster or leaflets etc, would they have any grounds to refuse to display said poster along side their other posters/leaflets? If they refused to display it due to disagreeing with the message, would they be guilty of discrimination?

Again your mistaking homosexuality as being a lifestyle choice, it isn't. If the church really wanted equality then they'd pay their taxes like everyone else.

[beensaidbefore]

Again your mistaking homosexuality as being a lifestyle choice, it isn't. If the church really wanted equality then they'd pay their taxes like everyone else.

Not sure I quite get your point.

What do taxes have to do with anything?

[beensaidbefore]

I think bars and shops can refuse to display posters etc without reason.

The bar isn't selling a poster display service.

Also, same sex marriage is already legal and well established. I assume that any pro same sex marriage poster would also have an anti gay marriage message so the gay bar would be well within their right to tell them to do one.


When you put it like that I can see there isn't really a comparison. It is a tricky one and quite difficult to make an example to see it from the other side. Perhaps there isn't.

[Mr White]

When you put it like that I can see there isn't really a comparison. It is a tricky one and quite difficult to make an example to see it from the other side. Perhaps there isn't.

I don't think there is. The inequality that exists in NI for LGBT couples is a shame upon the provence though. The fact that it's such a political hot potato (due to the influence of religious zealots imo) that the MLA's in Stormont won't even properly debate having a referendum on gay marriage, let alone call one speaks volumes about how backward thinking this place is at the moment.

It's quite sad really as I believe that a public vote on the matter would be carried.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I do think that in certain circumstances peoples personal beliefs should be taken into account. For example a guest house where the owners are Christian wouldn't allow an unmarried straight couple to share a bed and they almost certainly wouldn't want a Gay couple to do so either married or not, in both cases because what they believe doesn't allow it.

In the case of this cake it seems to me that the people who wanted it made chose this bakery because they knew it would say no, the cake wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake saying 'support gay marriage' ..... how many wedding cakes has anybody seen that said 'support marriage' gay or otherwise on it?

In reality the logical outcome of cases like these is that devout Christians, or Muslims for that matter, are effectively barred from running guest houses and now bakeries it would appear ...... gay rights groups will no doubt target any business they are aware of run by Christians on the back of recent events like this one and the famous Christian guest house case ..... at what point does it stop being Gays persecuted by Christians and start being Christians persecuted by Gays?

Just for the record I'm not against Gay marriage or Gay people for that matter, people are what they are and get on with it I say. But people also have their religious beliefs and to them they are just as real, just as important, as the rights of people to exercise their right to their sexuality.

The law says its illegal to discriminate against people because of their religion or their sexuality ..... Is it not discrimination to force people who practice a religion to do something that flies directly in the face of their beliefs in order to prevent discrimination against another set of people. If you say, yes they must, then as I said you are giving them a choice between being able to run a business or adhering to their religious beliefs, but not both and if you ask me that's as clear a case of discrimination as you can find.

Talk about a catch 22 situation.

[beensaidbefore]

I do think that in certain circumstances peoples personal beliefs should be taken into account. For example a guest house where the owners are Christian wouldn't allow an unmarried straight couple to share a bed and they almost certainly wouldn't want a Gay couple to do so either married or not, in both cases because what they believe doesn't allow it.

In the case of this cake it seems to me that the people who wanted it made chose this bakery because they knew it would say no, the cake wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake saying 'support gay marriage' ..... how many wedding cakes has anybody seen that said 'support marriage' gay or otherwise on it?

In reality the logical outcome of cases like these is that devout Christians, or Muslims for that matter, are effectively barred from running guest houses and now bakeries it would appear ...... gay rights groups will no doubt target any business they are aware of run by Christians on the back of recent events like this one and the famous Christian guest house case ..... at what point does it stop being Gays persecuted by Christians and start being Christians persecuted by Gays?

Just for the record I'm not against Gay marriage or Gay people for that matter, people are what they are and get on with it I say. But people also have their religious beliefs and to them they are just as real, just as important, as the rights of people to exercise their right to their sexuality.

The law says its illegal to discriminate against people because of their religion or their sexuality ..... Is it not discrimination to force people who practice a religion to do something that flies directly in the face of their beliefs in order to prevent discrimination against another set of people. If you say, yes they must, then as I said you are giving them a choice between being able to run a business or adhering to their religious beliefs, but not both and if you ask me that's as clear a case of discrimination as you can find.

Talk about a catch 22 situation.

That's what I meant to say!!😉

[Mr White]

at what point does it stop being Gays persecuted by Christians and start being Christians persecuted by Gays?



In the case of northern ireland a balance will only be found if and when the law catches up with the rest of the UK (and ROI too of course) and same sex marriage is allowed. Jeez when you're doing worse than the holy republic for having your laws dictated by those hiding their bigotry behind the untouchable shroud of religious belief then alarm bells should be ringing loud imo.

Maybe at that point "gays (might) start persecuting christians". I doubt it though. They just want what the rest of us take for granted.

[McD]

I do think that in certain circumstances peoples personal beliefs should be taken into account. For example a guest house where the owners are Christian wouldn't allow an unmarried straight couple to share a bed and they almost certainly wouldn't want a Gay couple to do so either married or not, in both cases because what they believe doesn't allow it.

In the case of this cake it seems to me that the people who wanted it made chose this bakery because they knew it would say no, the cake wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake saying 'support gay marriage' ..... how many wedding cakes has anybody seen that said 'support marriage' gay or otherwise on it?

In reality the logical outcome of cases like these is that devout Christians, or Muslims for that matter, are effectively barred from running guest houses and now bakeries it would appear ...... gay rights groups will no doubt target any business they are aware of run by Christians on the back of recent events like this one and the famous Christian guest house case ..... at what point does it stop being Gays persecuted by Christians and start being Christians persecuted by Gays?

Just for the record I'm not against Gay marriage or Gay people for that matter, people are what they are and get on with it I say. But people also have their religious beliefs and to them they are just as real, just as important, as the rights of people to exercise their right to their sexuality.

The law says its illegal to discriminate against people because of their religion or their sexuality ..... Is it not discrimination to force people who practice a religion to do something that flies directly in the face of their beliefs in order to prevent discrimination against another set of people. If you say, yes they must, then as I said you are giving them a choice between being able to run a business or adhering to their religious beliefs, but not both and if you ask me that's as clear a case of discrimination as you can find.

Talk about a catch 22 situation.


Eloquently put, and a succinct description of why this is such a difficult situation to get to grips with.

[Mr White]

Eloquently put, and a succinct description of why this is such a difficult situation to get to grips with.

This post from earlier in the thread simplifies it. At least from a legal point of view.


this case is not about a clash of protected beliefs. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation.

[NAE NOOKIE]

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

But the bakery didn't refuse to bake a cake ... it refused to bake a cake with a particular message on it which the owners of the bakery didn't ( couldn't ) agree with. The judges assertion that the bakery wasn't a 'religious organization' and therefor not exempt under the regulations may well be correct in law, but it still has the same affect for the bakery owners and people like them as I outlined in my previous post ....... It puts people with strong religious beliefs in a position where if they want to run a 'for profit business' ( what 'business' that is a persons living isn't? ) then they can be forced to do things that to them are against that religion and if they don't then they cannot run a business.

That's as clear a case of a law designed to prevent discrimination against one group being used to discriminate against another as you can get. The fact here is that the people who ordered this cake were not asking the bakery to bake a cake to be used at a wedding, or if they were it was purely coincidental. What they were asking the bakery to do was bake a cake with a message on it that was totally at odds with what the owners believed in. If they wanted a wedding cake then all the had to do was order a wedding cake ..... who the hell goes into a bakery and asks for a cake for a straight or gay wedding, what they ask for is a wedding cake ..... and who the hell has a slogan or political message on their wedding cake anyway?

If the bakery had simply refused to bake a cake because it was for a gay wedding then I would be slightly more sympathetic to the people who brought this case ... The fact that they asked the bakery to bake a cake advocating 'support' for something their religion tells them is wrong ( whether you agree with that or not ) may have been a great idea as far as the winners of this case were concerned, to me what they did was unfair to the bakery and just replacing one form of discrimination with another ..... even if the law says it wasn't.

[Mr White]

Here's an interesting article about the real injustice at that the heart of this issue in northern ireland. The bakery and those supporting them are simply not the ones being discriminated against here. That the DUP are actively blocking democratic process on the issue is outrageous imo. But not surprising.

"Last year,a majority of MLAs voted in favour of same-sex marriage but the motion was blocked by the DUP when it deployed the petition."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37791366

[Sergio sledge]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759


The president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale ruled that the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee."
She added: "Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee."

[Wembley67]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

Common sense prevails.

[Chic Murray]

A victory for common sense, freedom of thought and speech. Also good news for other bakers in Belfast, I would have thought.

[beensaidbefore]

And to top it off, Bert and Ernie aren't even gay. https://torontosun.com/news/world/ernie-and-bert-not-gay-sesame-workshop

[wpj]

Just watched this on the news, the "activist" who wanted the cake looks like he is more upset about his publicity ending than his cake not being made. I wouldnt be surprised if he chose the cake maker quite deliberately so be could be offended. To me it's all about freedom of the individual, I would have made that cake no problem but would not decorate a cake with racist text or something I felt strongly about.

[Chic Murray]

And to top it off, Bert and Ernie aren't even gay. https://torontosun.com/news/world/ernie-and-bert-not-gay-sesame-workshop

Eh?

[beensaidbefore]

Eh?

The picture they wanted on the cake had Bert and Ernie who were supposedly gay. That apparently is not the case. See the link earlier in the thread for a picture of the cake.

[CropleyWasGod]

The picture they wanted on the cake had Bert and Ernie who were supposedly gay. That apparently is not the case. See the link earlier in the thread for a picture of the cake.That Bert is as straight as the Squinty Bridge.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

The picture they wanted on the cake had Bert and Ernie who were supposedly gay. That apparently is not the case. See the link earlier in the thread for a picture of the cake.

It was in the Toronto Sun, eh?

[beensaidbefore]

It was in the Toronto Sun, eh?

Top of the list mate, saw an article a few weeks ago but couldn't remember where. I can confirm it wasn't the Toronto Sun. Type into google if you need further verification. Apparently someone was promoting the idea they were gay for while and the creator felt it necessary to highlight that they are not.

No points for guessing what the sexual orientation of the person promoting the idea they were gay🤔🤔

[CropleyWasGod]

Top of the list mate, saw an article a few weeks ago but couldn't remember where. I can confirm it wasn't the Toronto Sun. Type into google if you need further verification. Apparently someone was promoting the idea they were gay for while and the creator felt it necessary to highlight that they are not.

No points for guessing what the sexual orientation of the person promoting the idea they were gay[emoji848][emoji848]Other way about. It was the writer who thought they were gay. The producers denied it.

Apparently, Dudley Watkins had Daphne Broon as a drag queen. You can see his point.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

Top of the list mate, saw an article a few weeks ago but couldn't remember where. I can confirm it wasn't the Toronto Sun. Type into google if you need further verification. Apparently someone was promoting the idea they were gay for while and the creator felt it necessary to highlight that they are not.

No points for guessing what the sexual orientation of the person promoting the idea they were gay🤔🤔

:aok:

[One Day Soon]

Other way about. It was the writer who thought they were gay. The producers denied it.

Apparently, Dudley Watkins had Daphne Broon as a drag queen. You can see his point.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


I remember at High School one day someone brought in an 'alternative' version of the Broons. Never looked at Daphne and Maggie the same way again....

[frazeHFC]

This story infuriates me. Why are we wasting so much time and money (£250k public money) on this nonsense.

[hibbymick]

That Bert is as straight as the Squinty Bridge.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

😂😂

[Mibbes Aye]

This story infuriates me. Why are we wasting so much time and money (£250k public money) on this nonsense.

Because it’s right to highlight things like this.

And by highlighting it we change things.

And by changing things we help make the changes that our society needs to do to progress.

[Hiber-nation]

I remember at High School one day someone brought in an 'alternative' version of the Broons. Never looked at Daphne and Maggie the same way again....

Haha I've still got that 😂

[CropleyWasGod]

Because it’s right to highlight things like this.

And by highlighting it we change things.

And by changing things we help make the changes that our society needs to do to progress.Agreed.

With the increasing acceptance of diversity comes confusion amongst those who were used to "The old days". Cases like this help to clear up that confusion, and clarify for all sides what the law and society expect.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

I heard the complainers frustration on the news last night. I can't help feeling that he missed the point.

The best way to promote freedom of one group is not to attack the freedom of another. I hate to use the word snowflakes, but at times I feel the rainbow alliance is putting the advances in civil liberties which have been achieved in jeopardy.

They should be careful what they wish for. Most people are reasonable but when activists start going to excess like this, and hit the wrong target, it sends out the wrong message.

For example, a museum in London had been forced to change its exhibition praising the contribution of "womXn" in society.

Google what's that about, and you start to feel that there are much more important jobs to be getting on with.

[CropleyWasGod]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Chic Murray]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Like the way he phrased it, "a gay baker doesnt have to bake a cake with a homophobic message".

[Pretty Boy]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Hard to argue with any of that. Spot on covers it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:agree:

[Smartie]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I normally can accept people holding an alternative view and can understand why someone I disagree with holds their opinion, but Tatchell nails it 100% and I find it hard to understand how anyone can disagree with his position on this?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Peter Tatchell's take on it.

He's not always my favourite guy, but IMO he's spot-on here.

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:agree: …. More or less what I was saying in my posts.

[Ryan69]

I used to think that Bert and Ernie were just pals who shared a bed.

They have seperate beds.

Supposed to just be good buddies..according to producers.

[CropleyWasGod]

I used to think that Bert and Ernie were just pals who shared a bed.

You're thinking of Eric and Ernie.

They were camper than Butlin's.

[Colr]

Where can one buy a gay cake?

[Ozymandias]

I heard the complainers frustration on the news last night. I can't help feeling that he missed the point.

The best way to promote freedom of one group is not to attack the freedom of another. I hate to use the word snowflakes, but at times I feel the rainbow alliance is putting the advances in civil liberties which have been achieved in jeopardy.

They should be careful what they wish for. Most people are reasonable but when activists start going to excess like this, and hit the wrong target, it sends out the wrong message.

For example, a museum in London had been forced to change its exhibition praising the contribution of "womXn" in society.

Google what's that about, and you start to feel that there are much more important jobs to be getting on with.

if its the Wellcome exhibition you are referring to, they weren't in any way "forced to change the name". It was the museums own choice, and it has been widely derided and mocked by womens groups, and they ultimately issued an apology accepting they got it wrong.
It does change your point somewhat, unless it is a different event...

[Scouse Hibee]

Where can one buy a gay cake?

Fairy cakes are widely available.

[Peevemor]

Fairy cakes are widely available.

You'll go to the burny hot place for that.

[Chic Murray]

if its the Wellcome exhibition you are referring to, they weren't in any way "forced to change the name". It was the museums own choice, and it has been widely derided and mocked by womens groups, and they ultimately issued an apology accepting they got it wrong.
It does change your point somewhat, unless it is a different event...

Yes it was. People complained, and they changed it.

Help me out, why did they call it WomXn in the first place, and why was that offensive to some.

I honestly didn't have a scooby what the piece was about, and it all seemed a bit trivial to me.

For me, somebody somewhere had taken things too far. I'm pretty open minded, but to be honest I thought the whole lot of them could surely be finding something more important to argue about.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes it was. People complained, and they changed it.

Help me out, why did they call it WomXn in the first place, and why was that offensive to some.

I honestly didn't have a scooby what the piece was about, and it all seemed a bit trivial to me.

For me, somebody somewhere had taken things too far. I'm pretty open minded, but to be honest I thought the whole lot of them could surely be finding something more important to argue about.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45810709

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lyonhibs]

Yes it was. People complained, and they changed it.

Help me out, why did they call it WomXn in the first place, and why was that offensive to some.

I honestly didn't have a scooby what the piece was about, and it all seemed a bit trivial to me.

For me, somebody somewhere had taken things too far. I'm pretty open minded, but to be honest I thought the whole lot of them could surely be finding something more important to argue about.

Your last sentence summarises perfectly my gut reaction to an awful lot of the stooshies I see in the news of late.

"Is this really the most important thing going on in their lives right now. Will this really further their cause (whatever that may be) meaningfully??"

[Pretty Boy]

Your last sentence summarises perfectly my gut reaction to an awful lot of the stooshies I see in the news of late.

"Is this really the most important thing going on in their lives right now. Will this really further their cause (whatever that may be) meaningfully??"

There definitely seems to be a growing trend to make something out of nothing. I saw something the other week about Kleenex being bombarded with complaints about mansize tissues because a little girl had asked her Mum 'can Mummies use them too?' or similar. Firstly that never happened, secondly if it did are we really so stupid we can't explain that to a child. thirdly I've become something of a regular at Mothercare in the last couple of years; it's never once crossed my mind, until today, to complain to them about the name and suggest that as an equal, valuable and contributing partner in my daughters upbringing they really should rename their store Motherandfathercare. Of course that excludes same sex and other 'non traditional' parents so it should really be motherandfatherorfatherandfatherormotherandmothero rsingleparentfamilyornonnucleartraditionalfamilyor nonbinarygendernonspecificcare.

Ridiculous of course but no more so than not being able to comprehend and explain mansize tissues to a child in a world in which genuine inequality still exists.

[Chic Murray]

There definitely seems to be a growing trend to make something out of nothing. I saw something the other week about Kleenex being bombarded with complaints about mansize tissues because a little girl had asked her Mum 'can Mummies use them too?' or similar. Firstly that never happened, secondly if it did are we really so stupid we can't explain that to a child. thirdly I've become something of a regular at Mothercare in the last couple of years; it's never once crossed my mind, until today, to complain to them about the name and suggest that as an equal, valuable and contributing partner in my daughters upbringing they really should rename their store Motherandfathercare. Of course that excludes same sex and other 'non traditional' parents so it should really be motherandfatherorfatherandfatherormotherandmothero rsingleparentfamilyornonnucleartraditionalfamilyor nonbinarygendernonspecificcare.

Ridiculous of course but no more so than not being able to comprehend and explain mansize tissues to a child in a world in which genuine inequality still exists.

So many looking to be offended by any challenge to their values that they see problems where they don't exist.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6310731/Bakery-faces-online-backlash-selling-gender-neutral-gingerbread-persons.html

[Pretty Boy]

So many looking to be offended by any challenge to their values that they see problems where they don't exist.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6310731/Bakery-faces-online-backlash-selling-gender-neutral-gingerbread-persons.html

I just hope I'm a good enough parent that I manage to raise a daughter who is strong enough not to get upset about a mansize tissue or a Gentlemans Club Sandwich.

[Chic Murray]

I just hope I'm a good enough parent that I manage to raise a daughter who is strong enough not to get upset about a mansize tissue or a Gentlemans Club Sandwich.

The kids know better, try explaining to them what gender neutral means come Christmas time.

[CropleyWasGod]

So many looking to be offended by any challenge to their values that they see problems where they don't exist.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6310731/Bakery-faces-online-backlash-selling-gender-neutral-gingerbread-persons.html

In my childhood, I was confused as to why gingerbread men were emasculated (in case the swearfilter doesn't allow "cocks".) :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

In my childhood, I was confused as to why gingerbread men were emasculated (in case the swearfilter doesn't allow "cocks".) :greengrin

It does.

What about Action Man? He was also gender specific but had no cock. I'm more confused now than I was as a child. And how did Barbie and Ken get it on?

[Chic Murray]

In my childhood, I was confused as to why gingerbread men were emasculated (in case the swearfilter doesn't allow "cocks".) :greengrin

I am starting to worry about you. :faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

It does.

What about Action Man? He was also gender specific but had no cock. I'm more confused now than I was as a child. And how did Barbie and Ken get it on?

**** off.:rolleyes:

Barbie was too pure. Anyways, she was just what they call a "beard" for Ken. The Gaydar machine went off the scale for him.

Action man didn't have a cock, to enable him to be virtually impervious to the worst torture that those nasty Jerries or Japs could inflict upon him.

[Pretty Boy]

**** off.:rolleyes:

Barbie was too pure. Anyways, she was just what they call a "beard" for Ken. The Gaydar machine went off the scale for him.

Action man didn't have a cock, to enable him to be virtually impervious to the worst torture that those nasty Jerries or Japs could inflict upon him.

There has to be a joke in there about a 'Japs eye' but I'd probably have to ban myself if I made it.

[beensaidbefore]

I suppose we will be seeing an end to lady finger bananas and sponge fingers soon. Can't be having such gender based stuff.

Slightly off topic, I saw a photo in yesterday's metro where it was all jokes and laughs that cara delvigne (sp) was tweaking a male models nipples. #metoo👍👍

[Bristolhibby]

It does.

What about Action Man? He was also gender specific but had no cock. I'm more confused now than I was as a child. And how did Barbie and Ken get it on?

Scissoring.