'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.

[andy-hughes]

dave - // As I think I said when this case first came to light. I wonder how long it took this gay couple to find a bakery run by devout Christians to make their cake? I will now add, perhaps they can find a bakery run by muslims next time. //

Do you seriously think that these people asked around until they found a 'Christian' bakery and then created a situation whereby they could take the owners to court?

If you live in the real world, you will know that any gay person encounters quite enough pointless bigotry and nastiness in their daily lives simply by being who they are - they don't need to waste valuable time and money going out looking for it!

[Islay]

//I wonder how long it took this gay couple to find a bakery run by devout Christians to make their cake?//

Did you bother reading my answer at the top of page 3?
Gareth is not like that at all - he went to the bakery on a recommendation from some girls in the office!

[andy-hughes]

Islay - // Did you bother reading my answer at the top of page 3?
Gareth is not like that at all - he went to the bakery on a recommendation from some girls in the office! //

Let's not let simple facts get in the way of a prejudiced fantasy being shoe-horned into a sensible debate - shall we?

[ludwig]

CORBY // LUDWIG, that definition said, "especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex " it didn't say "only" did it? It was giving examples and disabled folk can be discriminated against because of their disabilities but that wasn't in the definition either //

That is entirely correct, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

I'll repeat my basic point one last time and then give up as it's clearly not being understood.

In order to discriminate between two people (or groups) you have to treat them differently.

This did not happen. No-one else asking for a 'gay' cake to be baked had their request accepted, and nor would they, because it was the CAKE that they objected to, not the customer.

[THECORBYLOON]

LUDWIG, you asked, "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."

There was no mention of different religious beliefs was there?

[andy-hughes]

Ludwig - // I'll repeat my basic point one last time and then give up as it's clearly not being understood. //

I understand your point, but I think it is incorrect - and so it appears do the Appeal Court judges.

[Mamyalynne]

Thanks Islay for your input.

I said all I need to the last time this was dragged out and I'll wait to see the result of the appeal.

I will add, I do wonder looking at threads posted today why certain Businesses make life so hard and expensive for themselves.

[ludwig]

CORBY // LUDWIG, you asked, "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." //

// There was no mention of different religious beliefs was there? //

I'm not sure we're talking the same language CORBY, but I'll rephrase the question if it helps.

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, OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF asking for the same cake to be baked.

[andy-hughes]

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, OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF asking for the same cake to be baked. //

The fact boils down to this -

The bakery owners could have refused to bake the cake for a large number of legal reasons.

They did not - they refused on the basis that their religious beliefs were offended by the message on the cake.

That is religious discrimination. It's illegal.

They were prosecuted for it.

They lost.

They appealed.

They lost again.

That appears to be the end of it.

[THECORBYLOON]

The message went against the owner's religious beliefs. It is likely that any customer requesting a similar message would have been refused.

As the business is a commercial concern, they are not allowed to discriminate by refusing to accept an order on religious grounds.

[andy-hughes]

Exactly Corby - the message itself, and the context behind it are not the issue, it is the reason why the cake was refused, and that was religious discrimination. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the customer - although I strongly suspect that the bigotry exhibited on that day was a major factor, but not provable in law.

If I had rocked up and asked for a cake with the message 'Satan rules!' and the bakers refused my order on the basis that their religious beliefs were offended, then exactly the same law would have been broken, with potentially the same case and outcome.

[THECORBYLOON]

If the message had been, "Gay marriage is an abomination!" would that have been refused?

[andres]

For crying out loud --why on earth did the bakers not just say they would bake the cake but the gays would have to get someone else to decorate it. Or even that they would put the icing on and then the gays could have got one of their friends to pipe the wording on the cake. This issue could have been resolved with a bit of 'give and take'.

[ludwig]

A-H // They did not - they refused on the basis that their religious beliefs were offended by the message on the cake.
That is religious discrimination. It's illegal. //

You previously stated (incorrectly) that the reason they refused to bake the cake was because they objected to the customer being gay. You are now saying something different. However, leaving that aside, if what you now say is true, it is a ridiculous law.

It means anyone can go into a muslim baker and ask them to bake a cake with some offensive slogan about mohammed on it, and they have to bake it - or make up some other excuse than religion to not do so. Utterly ridiculous and wrong, in my opinion.

[Islay]

andres, the bakery offered a service, they were hired and paid for that service - money exchanged hands - a week later they refused to carry out said service because of the reasons stated.
That is illegal!!
None of this bake the cake and we will get someone else to ice it!!

[andres]

Well all I can say is I hope the Bakers win !

[THECORBYLOON]

LUDWIG, the Court of Appeal found there was discrimination 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”) so there were various grounds.

[Mamyalynne]

Is that your motto in life Andres - you order,you pay and someone backs out of the deal and you slap them on the back and wish them well?

Interesting.

[Islay]

Why andres?

[andy-hughes]

andres - // For crying out loud --why on earth did the bakers not just say they would bake the cake but the gays would have to get someone else to decorate it. Or even that they would put the icing on and then the gays could have got one of their friends to pipe the wording on the cake. This issue could have been resolved with a bit of 'give and take'. //

It's very simple.

The bakers are religious bigots, and far from the attitude of tolerance and love that their faith preaches, and they as Christians they are bound to live by, they felt it necessary to break the law in order to make sure that the customers knew that they were religious bigots.

As I and others have advised on the original thread, and this one, there are myriad reasons any trader can offer for withdrawing a service, the simplest of which is the wish not to proceed, without giving a reason, which they are perfectly entitled to do under the law.

But they felt that they had to make sure that their bigotry flag was flown large and proud, for everyone to see, and quite rightly their offensive prejudice has landed them in court, and seen them punished for their behaviour.

You can be a bigot from now 'til Kingdom Come (ha ha) but if you break the law doing it, then you get punished.