News0 min ago
'gay Cake' Back In Court
//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://
I didn’t realise this argument was still going on. Will an appeal to the Supreme Court succeed? I have my doubts.
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://
I didn’t realise this argument was still going on. Will an appeal to the Supreme Court succeed? I have my doubts.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
It was not a couple Clover it was an individual getting the cake for a party with their support group and the Belfast Mayor.
I know the individual - he is made out to be an activist but he is just an individual who was treated badly - they took his order then a week later refused to do it - and spoke badly to him ( Iwas there when he took the call in the office).
All this rubbish about being a Christian bakers - hell no one knew in my office that they were a christian bakers!!
Just accept the ruling and get on with it!
I know the individual - he is made out to be an activist but he is just an individual who was treated badly - they took his order then a week later refused to do it - and spoke badly to him ( Iwas there when he took the call in the office).
All this rubbish about being a Christian bakers - hell no one knew in my office that they were a christian bakers!!
Just accept the ruling and get on with it!
CORBYLOON. I just googled it and here is the first result that came up...
1.the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex
Perhaps you can explain to me how the people asking for the cake to be baked were treated differently to anyone else of different race, age, sex, or sexual orientation asking for the same cake to be baked.
1.the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex
Perhaps you can explain to me how the people asking for the cake to be baked were treated differently to anyone else of different race, age, sex, or sexual orientation asking for the same cake to be baked.
YMB - // Is it law now to "Support Gay Marriage"? //
No it's not - it's just law not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality.
No-one is legally obliged to support gay marriage, but the laws on discrimination are there to protect minorities from prejudicial behaviour - as in this case.
No it's not - it's just law not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality.
No-one is legally obliged to support gay marriage, but the laws on discrimination are there to protect minorities from prejudicial behaviour - as in this case.
andy-hughes
But...I don’t think the customers were refused service based on their sexuality.
Hypothetically, if a straight customer came in, and wanted a cake baked for their gay brother who was getting married - and it had exactly the same design as this one, they too would be refused service.
Therefore, technically - this isn’t discriminatory.
But...I don’t think the customers were refused service based on their sexuality.
Hypothetically, if a straight customer came in, and wanted a cake baked for their gay brother who was getting married - and it had exactly the same design as this one, they too would be refused service.
Therefore, technically - this isn’t discriminatory.
Ludwig - // Perhaps you can explain to me how the people asking for the cake to be baked were treated differently to anyone else of different race, age, sex, or sexual orientation asking for the same cake to be baked. //
Allow me, if I may.
The customers were advised that the bakery were refusing to bake the cake on the basis of the sexual orientation of those customers, and that is illegal.
The bakery could have simply refused to bake the cake, without explanation, and have been perfectly within their rights to do so.
They chose to make it clear that the reason they were not baking the cake was because of the orientation of the customers, and that is illegal.
Hope that helps.
Allow me, if I may.
The customers were advised that the bakery were refusing to bake the cake on the basis of the sexual orientation of those customers, and that is illegal.
The bakery could have simply refused to bake the cake, without explanation, and have been perfectly within their rights to do so.
They chose to make it clear that the reason they were not baking the cake was because of the orientation of the customers, and that is illegal.
Hope that helps.
sp1814 - // andy-hughes
But...I don’t think the customers were refused service based on their sexuality.
Hypothetically, if a straight customer came in, and wanted a cake baked for their gay brother who was getting married - and it had exactly the same design as this one, they too would be refused service. //
If the bakery is - and it was - making it clear beyond doubt that the reason for the refusal is discriminatory, then they break the law. Who orders the cake is not the issue, the reason why it was refused is the issue.
But...I don’t think the customers were refused service based on their sexuality.
Hypothetically, if a straight customer came in, and wanted a cake baked for their gay brother who was getting married - and it had exactly the same design as this one, they too would be refused service. //
If the bakery is - and it was - making it clear beyond doubt that the reason for the refusal is discriminatory, then they break the law. Who orders the cake is not the issue, the reason why it was refused is the issue.
sp - // No. I don’t think it is religious discrimination, because it would have to be discrimination based on the religion of the customer, surely? //
As I understand it, the discrimination was based on sexual orientation, which is illegal.
The reason for that discrimination was based on religious beliefs - but that is not the reason why the case was brought, and won.
As I understand it, the discrimination was based on sexual orientation, which is illegal.
The reason for that discrimination was based on religious beliefs - but that is not the reason why the case was brought, and won.
andy-hughes //The customers were advised that the bakery were refusing to bake the cake on the basis of the sexual orientation of those customers, and that is illegal. //
I was unaware of this, and can find no reference to it in the news article, (which is strange because it is the crux of the whole thing as far as I can see). However it does give this quote from the bakery.
"We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message".
If you can find anything to support your previous reply I'd be interested to see it.
I was unaware of this, and can find no reference to it in the news article, (which is strange because it is the crux of the whole thing as far as I can see). However it does give this quote from the bakery.
"We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message".
If you can find anything to support your previous reply I'd be interested to see it.
SP the beliefs of the customer were different from those of the owners therefore there is discrimination.
A person may have no religious beliefs whatsoever but that does not prevent religious discrimination if a business refuses to do a cake that says "God does not exist" because the owner says it goes against his faith.
A person may have no religious beliefs whatsoever but that does not prevent religious discrimination if a business refuses to do a cake that says "God does not exist" because the owner says it goes against his faith.
Look, to discriminate between two different people, you have to treat them differently.
I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that concept.
There's another thread about black people being asked to pay in advance in a restaurant, but not white people. Clearly discriminatory. Clearly racist.
No customer in this case was treated differently to any other customer.
I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that concept.
There's another thread about black people being asked to pay in advance in a restaurant, but not white people. Clearly discriminatory. Clearly racist.
No customer in this case was treated differently to any other customer.
The Appeal Court did find there was religious discrimination.
"The Court of Appeal today found that Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to make a cake supporting same sex marriage. It further found that the relevant legislation is not incompatible with Articles 9, 10 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The following is a summary of the Court of Appeal judgment: This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge Brownlie whereby she found that Colin McArthur (“the first appellant”), Karen McArthur (“the second appellant”) and Ashers Baking Company Limited (“the third appellant”) directly discriminated against Gareth Lee (“the respondent”) on the grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”) and on the grounds of religious and political belief contrary to the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order 1998 (“the 1998 Order”)"
"The Court of Appeal today found that Ashers Baking Company had directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to make a cake supporting same sex marriage. It further found that the relevant legislation is not incompatible with Articles 9, 10 or 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The following is a summary of the Court of Appeal judgment: This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge Brownlie whereby she found that Colin McArthur (“the first appellant”), Karen McArthur (“the second appellant”) and Ashers Baking Company Limited (“the third appellant”) directly discriminated against Gareth Lee (“the respondent”) on the grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”) and on the grounds of religious and political belief contrary to the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order 1998 (“the 1998 Order”)"
My take on this is that the bakery owners, instead of simply finding any number of perfectly legal reasons to refuse to make the cake, felt the need to trumpet their religious beliefs, and look down on the customer while they were doing it.
That adds arrogance to their bigotry, and I am delighted that their appeal has been turned down.
If you can't reconcile being a religious bigot with the requirement to conform to the law, then do something else than bake cakes for a living.
That adds arrogance to their bigotry, and I am delighted that their appeal has been turned down.
If you can't reconcile being a religious bigot with the requirement to conform to the law, then do something else than bake cakes for a living.
// Discrimination need happen only once //
Yes, and it didn't. Go back and look at the dictionary definition.
As I said, if something unlawful did happen, then the name of the offence needs to change to reflect it...'religious stupidity' for example, or perhaps 'Doing something gay activists don't like'.
Yes, and it didn't. Go back and look at the dictionary definition.
As I said, if something unlawful did happen, then the name of the offence needs to change to reflect it...'religious stupidity' for example, or perhaps 'Doing something gay activists don't like'.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Home & Garden4 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News10 mins ago
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.