Cake Off?

[douglas9401]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

The road to common sense is paved with tenners.

[DTCwordfan]

So, just like the case down here as to the Marazion hotel, not a word from either the Catholic or Protestant churches - true to form, no effing moral standing at all. Disgraceful.

[sp1814]

douglas9401

Do you really think that one person’s opinion (although I agree with the thrust of what Peter Tatchell says) means the argument is over?

[DTCwordfan]

whether one is christia, agnostic or aetheist, I would expect the so-called Defenders of the Faith to back their folk.....wimps.

[douglas9401]

No, sp1814, I was being sarcastic, but you knew that.

It's over because the Supreme Court says it is.

[sp1814]

douglas9401

Nope. Saracasm hardly ever works when written down.

[sp1814]

An interesting side effect of this, as pointed out by Peter Tatchell, is that bigots can no longer do the same.

[douglas9401]

"Nope. Saracasm hardly ever works when written down."

I'll be sure to keep that in mind. x

[Baldric]

mushroom at 11:23,
/// i can't understand why the owners of the characters haven't kicked off. the characters were misrepresented on the cake design. they are not - and never have been - gay ///

https://www.iradio.ie/those-bert-and-ernie-rumours-have-finally-been-put-to-bed/

[jennyjoan]

best answer was truly won LOL - good post

[grumpy01]

No one,as far as I can see,has mentioned that same sex marriage is not allowed in Northern Ireland.Therefore,what would be the point of printing something on a cake which cannot happen.

[Kromovaracun]

//Well yes - that is what they believe//

If they refused to provide this service because they think being gay is wrong, then that is discrimination by the spirit of the law if not the letter.

I understand why the SC has made this ruling but they have effectively created a huge loophole in the anti-discrimination laws which any bigot, especially religious ones, can now use. They've made it effectively unenforceable.

[New Judge]

I haven' read all of this but...

"He was told on the phone they would not make the cake because they don't believe in Gay marriage.
Why should he not take action emmie?"

Because refusing to make the cake because they do not believe in gay marriage is not discriminatory. Refusing to make it because the customer was gay would be but they didn't do that. The bakery would refuse to make it for anybody who asked so they were not discriminating against this particular customer. The Supreme Court simply came to the conclusion that the lower courts should have done which would have saved the Equalities Commission (funded by the taxpayer) around £250k.

[Theland]

Could a printer refuse to print leaflets if he disagreed with the content of the leaflet?

[New Judge]

And the SC made the point that holding a view - however objectionable it may be to some - is not discriminatory. To discriminate you have to treat people differently on the basis of one of the "protected features" (e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.). The bakery did not do so. It stated (and it was accepted by the court) that they would not make such a cake for anybody because they did not agree with the sentiment it was to display. They wouldn't make the cake because they disagreed with gay marriage not because they objected to the customer's sexual orientation.

[New Judge]

"Could a printer refuse to print leaflets if he disagreed with the content of the leaflet?"

I don't see why not. It could be argued that (say) only gay people would ask for material supporting gay marriage. But that's not what the SC found. It must be realised that not everybody agrees with everything.

[sp1814]

grumpy01i

Unicorns don't exist. However, I have seen plenty of cakes with unicorns on them.

Thaland - yes a printer could not be forced to print anything they found objectionable. Once again - the Equalities Act 2010 does not enshrine disagreement with ideas, only people.

If someone went to a bakery asking for a cake to be made emblazoned with 'Keep marriage sacred', they could equally be refused under this ruling.

[grumpy01]

Are you sure that's not a My Little Pony cake with a Birthday candle strategically placed that you saw SP1814.Having read a bit about this it seems that this couple were particularly targeted because of their beliefs therefore knowing it would cause publicity.I am in the live and let live party on this issue in general but dislike celebrities Elton John et al ramming it down our throats at any opportunity.

[Rockrose]

grumpy are you talking about the bakery couple being targeted? Because if you are I can assure you that is not true.

[ludwig]

Finally, the court has seen the obvious logic that you can't be guilty of discrimination if you treat everyone the same.

The simple fact is that they would have declined to make this cake irrespective of who the customer was.

[JJ109]

Rockrose - how can you assure grmpy? Are you one of the two people making the initial complaint? How do you know what they were thinking? Your statement does not stand up!