'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]

ich - // It’s a commercial transaction: no one was asking them actually to support gay marriage. //

The whole sorry business started because the bakery owners could not be sensitive and professional enough to turn down the request for their own reasons, they had to make sure that the customer was fully aware of their bigotry and nastiness.

That's because a lot of religious fundementalists like to use their beleifs as an excuse to be horrible, because that is what they are as people, and religion is a handy peg to hang their dreadul predjudices on

[Jackdaw33]

Bigotry, nastiness, horrible, dreadful. I think you are losing the plot, me old china.
BTW, try using a spell checker when you next post, it tends to distract from your otherwise highly thought-out posts.

[Islay]

Jackdaw what is it if not bigotry?

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "Do you have any evidence to back up that nonsense? " - stands to reason, shop refuses to serve them go to another, they chose to kick up this whole charade for their own attention seeking reasons, "look at us we are taking on the nasty bigots, woo hoo aren't we special".

[Islay]

If someone refused to serve me after taking my money because I was ginger - I too would take it further.
But you are making comments about someone you know nothing about.
He is not as you are making out as I have told you several times - but then it suits you too see him in such a manner doesn't it as it backs up your own perceptions of 'gays'!!

[murraymints]

for goodness sake..how much more clear cut can it be ? the bakery happily accepted the order took payment..contract of sale created..then had change of heart ... tough..deliver your side of the contract and bake the cake !!

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // AH: "Do you have any evidence to back up that nonsense? " - stands to reason, shop refuses to serve them go to another, they chose to kick up this whole charade for their own attention seeking reasons, "look at us we are taking on the nasty bigots, woo hoo aren't we special". //

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // AH: "Do you have any evidence to back up that nonsense? " - stands to reason, shop refuses to serve them go to another, they chose to kick up this whole charade for their own attention seeking reasons, "look at us we are taking on the nasty bigots, woo hoo aren't we special". //

Not everyone makes a stand because it draws attention to them personally, and says 'Look at us ..."

Rosa Parkes sat at the front of the bus and said nothing at all.

Your stereotyping of people who stand up for their rights shows you in a bad light, not them.

[EDDIE51]

All I can think of is the lawyers rubbing their hands in glee as the £ signs light up in their eyes.

[andy-hughes]

Jackdaw - // Bigotry, nastiness, horrible, dreadful. I think you are losing the plot, me old china. //

I think you are mistaken.

// BTW, try using a spell checker when you next post, it tends to distract from your otherwise highly thought-out posts. //

Standard AB etiquette is to ignore the odd typo, if it's distracting you, you need to get over it. My old china.

[Jackdaw33]

All this fuss over a frigging cake!

[andy-hughes]

Eddie - // All I can think of is the lawyers rubbing their hands in glee as the £ signs light up in their eyes. //

Really?

This is not Elton John suing The Sun for libel, or Cliff Richard suing the BBC.

I doubt there was much money made from the case, but stereotyping lawyers is like stereotyping gays, or people who stand up for what is right.

It's simple to do, but it says more about the stereotyper than anything else.

[andy-hughes]

Jackdaw - That really encapsulates the fact that you have failed to grasp the reasons for this situation, and its implications for society as a whole.

Tune in next week and hear Jackdaw say "Rosa Parkes - all that fuss about sitting at the front!"

[Islay]

Gareth is not expected to get any compensation for those that think this is about money!
This is about a law being broken based on someones sexuality!!

[Togo]

//highly thought-out posts.//

You got the middle two words the wrong way round Jackdaw.

[EDDIE51]

Andy, I'm not talking about compensation. I'm talking about the money the lawyers will get for pursuing this through the Supreme court. I am sure it will be in the hundreds or even thousands of £s per hour.

[Peter Pedant]

it is one of these cases where the judges walk into court and ask:
dont we know the law on this ?

[EDDIE51]

^ All of course funded by the taxpayer through legal aid.

[ToraToraTora]

AH I think you are losing your ability to examine both sides of the coin in these sorts of discussion. Your almost religious devotion to the "correct" view in this and the "racism" thread are a worry as is your recent evangelism regarding vegetarianism. Forgive me if I leave you to it. I think I have made my view clear enough, I don't expect either of us will change our views as a result of this discussion.

[EDDIE51]

^ Judges are on a fixed salary. It makes no difference to them how long a case takes or how many cases they are allocated. But solicitors and barristers are paid on a case by case basis ,the longer they can drag a case out the more the fees per hour. This is the main reason many top barristers refuse to become judges, they just can't live with the drop in earnings.