Cake Off?

[douglas9401]

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

The road to common sense is paved with tenners.

[grumpy01]

Perhaps they weren't Rockrose.However given their strongly held beliefs and the number of other bakeries in the city,from this distance it certainly looks like a huge coincidence.

[SparklyKid]

An absolute set up, very happy they did not get away with it and common sense prevailed.

[sp1814]

grumpy01

In Northern Ireland, isn't it quite easy to encounter bakeries run by Christians?

No targeting need be involved, especially when you read the circumstance of the case (the bakery was recommended by colleagues and the order accepted).

The idea of eqitibility is moot here, because we don't know how the owners would react if a straight couple brought the cake in...although personally, I suspect it would be the same.

The problem here is that people need to understand that bigotry is NOT enshrined in law. The outcome of this case doesn't mean the service provider can discriminate against anyone they choose and get away with it.

[SparklyKid]

Same sex marriage offends me personally, does that make me a bigot ?

[sp1814]

Sparklykid

Nice one...perhaps you furnish us with next week's lottery numbers, the location of MH370 and the whereabouts of Maddie McCann?

[jackthehat]

1. If you read the judgement you will see that the comapny had never made public its' Christian principles, so there was no targetting.
2. Rockrose has already explained her first-hand knowledge/involvement in this event, and explained that there was no targetting.

Still, don't let the truth get in the way of your your prejudices.

[sp1814]

Sparklykid

Yes.

According to the OED you are. But then again, we all have things and ideas we are bigoted against.

However, smart people recognise their bigotry and ensure their actions don't affect their relationship with the outside world.

[grumpy01]

You're quite right SP1814 bigotry cannot be tolerated.The judgement is that they would not print the message because of their beliefs not that they discriminated against the customer.Hence why the hoteliers lost their case a few years ago.

[SparklyKid]

Are same sex couples who are against he/she couples bigots then ?

[jackthehat]

Are there any?

[Rockrose]

Thank you Jack

[SparklyKid]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6263137/ANDREW-PIERCE-defends-family-slammed-refusing-bake-cake-carrying-gay-slogan.html

[jackthehat]

Yes. And?

[jackthehat]

As I said......from the judgement...

///They have sought to run Ashers in accordance with their beliefs, but this, and the biblical connection of the name, has not been advertised or otherwise made known to the public.///

[sp1814]

Sparklykid

You asked:

//Are same sex couples who are against he/she couples bigots then?//

There are very, very few same sex couples who are 'against he/she couples', because...

No, sorry - I was going to answer that like it wasn't a dumb question, but I really can't.

THAT IS A DUMB QUESTION.

Has anyone ever met a gay couple 'who are against he/she couples'. What is God's name does that even mean? Against tradition marriage? Against straight people getting together? Against their own origins (seeing as their parents are likely to be a straight couple).

No...it's a worthless question.

It has no merit.

[andy-hughes]

grumpy's post succinctly sums up the legal situation, which is what the court uses to form its judgement -

// You're quite right SP1814 bigotry cannot be tolerated.The judgement is that they would not print the message because of their beliefs not that they discriminated against the customer. //

It's an important distinction, but a vital one in legal terms, that the refusal was not made against the customer's orientation, but the message he wanted printed, which is not the same thing.

All the nonsense about it being a set-up and 'virtue-signalling' and so on, is so much irrelevant guff, the verdict was decided on the application of the law.

I said at the time that a degree of pragmatism would have avoided all this unpleasantness, the couple could have offered any number of reasons not to fulfil the order. They felt they had to make their beliefs and offence known, attitudes which do not sit well with running a business serving the public.

[andres]

What's the point in having religious beliefs if no-one adheres to them. ? Only a few months ago there was plenty of discussion on here regarding the case where Muslims took precedence over Christians when it came to post mortems and burials. Their beliefs were taken into account. Why should the bakers not be given the same consideration?

[andy-hughes]

andres - // What's the point in having religious beliefs if no-one adheres to them. ? Only a few months ago there was plenty of discussion on here regarding the case where Muslims took precedence over Christians when it came to post mortems and burials. Their beliefs were taken into account. Why should the bakers not be given the same consideration? //

If a Muslim couple had acted in the same way, for the same reasons, they would have been judged in the same way.

The case was not about the religious faith involved, it was about the actions that came about because of the beliefs in that faith.

[Spicerack]

The Act, The Act, 'they' love their ambiguous 2010 Act for the same reason they love 'Hate' laws.
They can catch-out and persecute normal people.
Last week the same people wanted to do away with the presumption of innocence and Jury Trials.
Luckily, soon we'll have a decent government in this country that will sweep all this PC nonsense into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

[Rockrose]

Its not PC nonsense to wish to be treated equally.