'gay Cake' Back In Court

[naomi24]

//A Northern Ireland bakery found to have discriminated for refusing to make a "gay cake" will have its appeal heard by the Supreme Court later on Tuesday.
Ashers Bakery are challenging the ruling over their decision - in 2014 - not to make a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".
Appeal court judges upheld the original decision in 2016.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on Tuesday and Wednesday during its first-ever hearings in Northern Ireland.//

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734

I didn’t realise this argument was still going on. Will an appeal to the Supreme Court succeed? I have my doubts.

[mushroom25]

in all of this, I don't understand why Sesame Workshop have never said anything - Bert and Ernie may have become gay icons but the TV company have been at pains to stress the characters are not gay. for gay marriage campaigners to openly suggest they are, for what would appear to be political reasons (against a government with a strict Presbyterian agenda) is misappropriation of Sesame Workshop's creations, surely?

[naomi24]

The regulators are climbing up their own bottoms. In our hospitals, religious foibles take precedence over hygiene rules that apply to everyone else, and when it comes to obtaining a Coroner’s report on a deceased person, religion has just been deemed paramount, so how come it isn’t paramount here?.

[Old_Geezer]

Because it was a poor judgement/decision re the coroner.

[naomi24]

Pardon?

[sp1814]

If anyone is left scratching their heads at the last comment from naomi24, this might help:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/jewish-service-calls-for-removal-of-london-coroner-over-burial-delay

At least I think this is what she’s talking about.

[Old_Geezer]

Aye about putting certain religions to the front of the queue for a first class rapid service, whilst discriminating against other families/citizens shoving them back to wait until they are got around to. Utter crepe decision.

[Patsy33]

I hope they win their appeal too. It is a form of bullying not right at all. The gay couple could have gone elsewhere. They didn't have to make trouble. Why should anyone have different/conflicting views forced upon them?

[youngmafbog]

An interesting one.

Is it law now to "Support Gay Marriage"?

Will we see lines of Christians and Muslims outside the law Courts waiting to be prosecuted?

I'm pretty much with TTT here. Once again it is a bunch of hard liners who will create discrimination from folk who may not previously have given a monkeys. This seems to be happening with a lot of groups at the moment. Everyone has to be offended to get their own way and sod the rest of us.

[sp1814]

“The gay couple could have gone elsewhere. They didn't have to make trouble.“

That principle is a little troubling.

[sp1814]

spathiphyllum

Yes you can.

However, if you then say, “I’m not serving you because of your race, sexuality, sex, marital status etc”, then you are breaking the law.

[Patsy33]

^^^^^
It's called respect!

[sp1814]

Patsy33

I think if people quietly accept bigotry (not in this case, but generally), then it drags us backwards.

It’d be like whispering to Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin “Stop making a fuss!”

[Patsy33]

Not at all. I don't believe it is bigotry.
So you'd like us all to think the same and no questions asked. Hmmm. 1984?

[ludwig]

sp1814 // ....They didn’t refuse to bake the cake because the customer was gay. They refused because of the message. They would have refused even if the customer were straight.

Therefore, I think they should win. //

This is my point of view entirely. It can't be discriminatory behaviour if all customers are treated the same. Some people may not like the fact they didn't want to bake the cake, but that's irrelevant. Simple logic dictates they have discriminated against no-one.

[andy-hughes]

Unsurprisingly, this thread has re-ignited the original arguments that were thrashed out when the case first came up - with everyone taking their respective positions once again for exactly the same reasons they did the first time around.

I would be surprised if the decision is overturned - it appears to have been made on sound legal grounds.

It is easy to cite the notions of 'bullying', 'freedom', 'restraint of trade', 'troublemaking' and so on, as we have all done already, but the fact remains - discrimination of the type exercised here is illegal, that is what the case, and indeed the appeal, come down to.

Everything else is opinion, but the case was argued, and judged, on the law, and since that has not changed, I doubt the appeal will succeed.

[ludwig]

// discrimination of the type exercised here is illegal, //

Then the law is wrong. It needs to get a new dictionary and look up the meaning of the word discrimination. Either that or change the name of the offence to reflect the situation that occurred.

[THECORBYLOON]

LUDWIG, what's your definition of discrimination?

[sp1814]

Patsy33

No, I don’t think that we should all think the same, but I think that if you and I went to a shop, or received service from a hospital or were doing the same job, we should be treated equally without prejudice.

I don’t think that in this case that the plaintiffs should win, but that’s because I don’t think bigotry is being displayed by the cake bakers. You can only discriminate against the customer, and in this case the customer wasn’t being discriminated against.

[sp1814]

...completely different from the bed and breakfast case, in which I thought the plaintiffs were in the right.