Sport3 mins ago
We Are Not Gay Bakers
Another one of these rulings
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ellipsis; No I'm not saying that. You are referring to small grubby hand-written notices, usually written on the inside of woodbine packets, pinned up in newsagents shops before (and after) the race relations act of 1965; half a century ago.
I stand 4-square behind the baker's decision not to go against his conscience, which may be hard for you to understand, but unless more people have the courage of their convictions, society is IMO sleepwalking into meltdown.
I stand 4-square behind the baker's decision not to go against his conscience, which may be hard for you to understand, but unless more people have the courage of their convictions, society is IMO sleepwalking into meltdown.
-- answer removed --
The cases mentioned above are not hypothetical, but just out of interest, I wonder what would happen if a company refused to put a political slogan on the cake? Is that discrimination? Only recently a garden centre put out a sign to say that Conservative voters would not be served. That appears to be legal.
Surely this case highlights that discrimination against the Gay community is above the Law? The Customer was in fact asking the baker to decorate a cake celebrating something illegal in that country (Gay marriage). This is Law, not Religion. I can't understand the Courts decision, save for perhaps they disagreed with the reason why the baker would not decorate the cake.
> I stand 4-square behind the baker's decision not to go against his conscience, which may be hard for you to understand, but unless more people have the courage of their convictions, society is IMO sleepwalking into meltdown.
That's fine, I do understand conscientious decisions. Unfortunately for you, and the baker, such decisions of conscience / belief / opinion / prejudice / intolerance [delete as applicable] are not aligned with the law of the land, particularly when it comes to running a business.
> Ellipsis, The point is people of religion are allowed to discriminate with impunity - but not if the customer is gay.
No, I think if the bakery had supplied the cake, perhaps decorated by somebody who didn't hold their religious convictions, they would not have had a problem. Similarly, if a supermarket sells you alcohol (or chooses not to stock it), or a pharmacist sells you contraception (or chooses not to stock it), that's also OK - and different to this case where the baker sold cakes, but nobody in the business was prepared to sell a cake to this customer.
That's fine, I do understand conscientious decisions. Unfortunately for you, and the baker, such decisions of conscience / belief / opinion / prejudice / intolerance [delete as applicable] are not aligned with the law of the land, particularly when it comes to running a business.
> Ellipsis, The point is people of religion are allowed to discriminate with impunity - but not if the customer is gay.
No, I think if the bakery had supplied the cake, perhaps decorated by somebody who didn't hold their religious convictions, they would not have had a problem. Similarly, if a supermarket sells you alcohol (or chooses not to stock it), or a pharmacist sells you contraception (or chooses not to stock it), that's also OK - and different to this case where the baker sold cakes, but nobody in the business was prepared to sell a cake to this customer.
ellipsis
// Then tell me it wasn't a decision based on religious bigotry - and that is the problem. //
A number of people including you seem to be missing the point. They may well be religious bigots, however, THAT ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW.
The thing that's against the law is DISCRIMINATION - ie treating a person or group of people DIFFERENTLY from another person or group of people for no valid reason.
Now, I'm absolutely certain they would have refused to bake the cake irrespective of whether the customer was gay, straight, black, white, whatever. In other words no-one was discriminated against. No-one was treated differently to how anyone else would have been treated.
This is quite clearly a different state of affairs to the Bed and Breakfast case, when the gay couple were refused entry to the B&B specifically because they were gay. A clear cut case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
If you can't ( or more likely won't ) see the difference there, then I give up.
// Then tell me it wasn't a decision based on religious bigotry - and that is the problem. //
A number of people including you seem to be missing the point. They may well be religious bigots, however, THAT ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW.
The thing that's against the law is DISCRIMINATION - ie treating a person or group of people DIFFERENTLY from another person or group of people for no valid reason.
Now, I'm absolutely certain they would have refused to bake the cake irrespective of whether the customer was gay, straight, black, white, whatever. In other words no-one was discriminated against. No-one was treated differently to how anyone else would have been treated.
This is quite clearly a different state of affairs to the Bed and Breakfast case, when the gay couple were refused entry to the B&B specifically because they were gay. A clear cut case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
If you can't ( or more likely won't ) see the difference there, then I give up.
ludwig
The point you've been making is this case is crystal ( well to me at least )
this may further help -
//"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. We've always been happy to serve any customers who come into our shops.//
The point you've been making is this case is crystal ( well to me at least )
this may further help -
//"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. We've always been happy to serve any customers who come into our shops.//
'The thing that's against the law is DISCRIMINATION - ie treating a person or group of people DIFFERENTLY from another person or group of people for no valid reason.'
Precisely my point. the cake and the gay nature of the customer is (as i'm sick of pointing out) irrelevant. The DISCRIMINATION was on religious grounds in this case.
Precisely my point. the cake and the gay nature of the customer is (as i'm sick of pointing out) irrelevant. The DISCRIMINATION was on religious grounds in this case.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.