# Gay cake.



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQqQIwBw&url=http://news.sky.com/story/1486774/gay-cake-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination&ei=GxZbVeTtMInU7Aay14HQCg&usg=AFQjCNEn0P6hNnEtdIq7849MWVIpKqJWNw&bvm=bv.93564037,d.ZGU

So what do you think,right or wrong.
I would like to know what Bert & Ernie have got to do with it.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

I wonder had a muslim run bakery refused to do it would they also have been charged. And everyone knows bert n ernie were doin the deed lol


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Surely it's more a case of copyright?
I know that many bakers use famous images on their cakes (including disney images), but I suspect that they do so in the hope that no one bothers to come after them for copyright violation.

As to the bakers' objection on Christian grounds, I am so glad it wasn't a Muslim bakery who refused. I can only imagine the absolute 'outrage' this would have caused in the DM


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I personally think both sides are just trying to make their point
The organisation that ordered the cake new the bakery was a Christian run bakery
The bakery could of refused to make the cake on other grounds such a copyright or too many orders but chose to give the reason that they don't support gay marriage
As someone who whole heartedly supports gay marriage and objects to the bakeries reasons for turning down the order I believe this is all about publicity on both sides.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

No matter what they say they are homophobic.

To use Christianity is a poor excuse, especially as a business, you cannot dictate how people live their lives if you are just baking a cake. If they had of refused them if they were black it wouldn't be ok and it's not because they are gay either.

The bible does not even cast it as a sin, it's more focused on having sex before marriage, but people bypass that if they wish to, even churches will marry a couple with their children born out of wedlock standing at the alter.

People will use religion as a way to discriminate if that's what they wish, I wonder if they truly live by every word in the bible?


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

More problems have been made in this World by religion than for any other reason.
Wars to name one.
I'm glad I'm an atheist.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Valanita said:


> More problems have been made in this World by religion than for any other reason.
> Wars to name one.
> *I'm glad I'm an atheist.*


Me too, yet somehow that seems to be a dirty word and somehow you are a bad person for it. I like to think it means you will do good just because rather then thinking a holy spirit will reward you for it!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

To be homophobic. is to have an irrational fear. There are many things people have an irrational fear against but they aren't vilified for it.

Nothing to do with this story but that is what homophobic is..............................


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> No matter what they say they are homophobic.
> 
> To use Christianity is a poor excuse, especially as a business, you cannot dictate how people live their lives if you are just baking a cake. *If they had of refused them if they were black it wouldn't be ok and it's not because they are gay either.*
> 
> ...


But they didn't refuse them because they were gay, they refused because they requested a gay message on the cake which completely goes against their own beliefs. Had the bakery been asked to decorate the cake with cute cats or flowery stuff, there wouldn't have been a problem. It's all about being allowed to hold onto your principles. If I - for example - ran a bakery and someone ordered a cake that said "Badger Killers Rule" I'd be telling them no can do. Do you think I would be taken to court for that? Probably not. But the principle remains the same.

True equality cannot ever exist because someone always has to compromise. These days it seems to be those who have strong Christian beliefs doing most of it.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> To be homophobic. is to have an irrational fear. There are many things people have an irrational fear against but they aren't vilified for it.
> 
> Nothing to do with this story but that is what homophobic is..............................


Homophobia is the HATRED or fear of homosexuals, it is not always a fear of it, it includes a hatred too.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Homophobia is the HATRED or fear of homosexuals, it is not always a fear of it, it includes a hatred too.


It's a phobia. Most phobias are uncontrollable


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they didn't refuse them because they were gay, they refused because they requested a gay message on the cake which completely goes against their own beliefs. Had the bakery been asked to decorate the cake with cute cats or flowery stuff, there wouldn't have been a problem. It's all about being allowed to hold onto your principles. If I - for example - ran a bakery and someone ordered a cake that said "Badger Killers Rule" I'd be telling them no can do. Do you think I would be taken to court for that? Probably not. But the principle remains the same.
> 
> True equality cannot ever exist because someone always has to compromise. These days it seems to be those who have strong Christian beliefs doing most of it.


It has nothing to do with having strong christian beliefs really.

I wonder if they have ever worn a jacket made from two different fabrics if their religious attachment to a fictitious book is so very strong?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> It's a phobia. Most phobias are uncontrollable


It's not a phobia as in a fear of heights, it is not all based on a phobia. A homophobic may not be afraid of gay people, it includes those who just hate them, no fear.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Well it seems that the cake got made by someone anyway:









As Fleur said, it's all about publicity from both sides.
And now they have had that publicity.....and their cake... and they have eaten it 

So most likely everyone involved is happy, but just not admitting it....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> It's not a phobia as in a fear of heights, it is not all based on a phobia. A homophobic may not be afraid of gay people, it includes those who just hate them, no fear.


But then there may be some who fear


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

The problem is not homophobia, but being forced to promote something which they personally felt to be wrong. There are other bakers who would willingly take the order. Would there be this outcry if a vet refused to tail dock a puppy (which is also legal but disapproved of by many). How many of you with a dog which is traditionally docked have "discriminated" against breeders who dock the whole litter, or actively sought out breeders who do not dock?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Freedom has to work both ways or it isn't freedom


----------



## SurfCFC (Dec 16, 2014)

Ridiculous, in this day and age I really cannot understand people who have such prejudices. Even if people think this way, is there really any need to act upon it? I don't care what you want on the cake, if you run a business like this then you must understand that you may come across people wanting things on cakes that you don't agree with. You can't just pick and choose what suits your 'beliefs'.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

So a vet should dock any puppy put in front of them, because they are a vet and can expect that request?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> So a vet should dock any puppy put in front of them, because they are a vet and can expect that request?


The vet would be inflicting pain, this was painless.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Freedom has to work both ways or it isn't freedom


Freedom to discriminate? If that were true then there would still be black people not allowed to dine where they wish or sit on a bus or use the same toilet.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> But then there may be some who fear


Some, but not all and not even most. Many people who I have encountered are not scared of them, have no fearful reaction, they hold hateful feelings towards gay people or find how they live their lives wrong, but not physically fearful of them.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

SurfCFC said:


> Ridiculous, in this day and age I really cannot understand people who have such prejudices. Even if people think this way, is there really any need to act upon it? I don't care what you want on the cake, if you run a business like this then you must understand that you may come across people wanting things on cakes that you don't agree with. You can't just pick and choose what suits your 'beliefs'.


So true! I do wonder if she turns away every unwed mother who asks for a christening cake too?

I really cannot understand the prejudice now either, people should get over themselves and let people live the life they wish to lead. It's great now people don't feel the need to hide their sexuality or even kill themselves because of the shame of it. We are moving forwards and it's time the likes of these people join us.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I think its a tricky one. Of course you should be free to have your gay cake and eat it too (mmmmmmm, cake!) but doesnt that mean that the baker should be free to refuse to make the cake as well for whatever reason??
Its a slippery slope though so they MUST make the cake. After all whats to stop them then refusing to make a cake on the grounds that your too lardy for cake or they think your hair is stupid!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Freedom to discriminate? If that were true then there would still be black people not allowed to dine where they wish or sit on a bus or use the same toilet.


But they were NOT discriminating against the people who ordered the cake. Had the purchaser wanted Bert & Ernie on the cake, and no wording, the cake would most likely have been made. The bakers did not refuse to sell them a cake, or make them a cake. They did not tell the purchaser to get out of their shop and never darken the doorstep again. THAT would have been discrimination. The bakers merely refused to put the wording on the cake because it went against THEIR own beliefs.

It was no more discrimination than I have the ability to fly!


----------



## SurfCFC (Dec 16, 2014)

emmaviolet said:


> So true! I do wonder if she turns away every unwed mother who asks for a christening cake too?
> 
> I really cannot understand the prejudice now either, people should get over themselves and let people live the life they wish to lead. It's great now people don't feel the need to hide their sexuality or even kill themselves because of the shame of it. We are moving forwards and it's time the likes of these people join us.


It can be applied to so many things in life. You cannot make choices for others based upon your own opinions. And it is an opinion and a choice because people do not have to discriminate.

I am not religious in the slightest, so I find it easy to say to these people to get over it and stop living in the past. That may be naïve of me but like you say, gay people (or any other person for that matter) should be able to live their lives without any shame whatsoever.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> So true! I do wonder if she turns away every unwed mother who asks for a christening cake too?
> 
> I really cannot understand the prejudice now either, *people should get over themselves and let people live the life they wish to lead.* It's great now people don't feel the need to hide their sexuality or even kill themselves because of the shame of it. We are moving forwards and it's time the likes of these people join us.


Indeed they should!!! So why did the buyers of the cake not turn round and say they would take their business elsewhere as they had no wish to force THEIR belief on the owners of the bakery. I'm sure there are plenty of other establishments who could have done the job.

I suppose it is easier to play the woe is me card instead and make a big deal out of it all!!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they were NOT discriminating against the people who ordered the cake. Had the purchaser wanted Bert & Ernie on the cake, and no wording, the cake would most likely have been made. The bakers did not refuse to sell them a cake, or make them a cake. They did not tell the purchaser to get out of their shop and never darken the doorstep again. THAT would have been discrimination. The bakers merely refused to put the wording on the cake because it went against THEIR own beliefs.
> 
> It was no more discrimination than I have the ability to fly!


I think you will find it was discrimination and a court of law have found them guilty of it.


----------



## SurfCFC (Dec 16, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they were NOT discriminating against the people who ordered the cake. Had the purchaser wanted Bert & Ernie on the cake, and no wording, the cake would most likely have been made. The bakers did not refuse to sell them a cake, or make them a cake. They did not tell the purchaser to get out of their shop and never darken the doorstep again. THAT would have been discrimination. The bakers merely refused to put the wording on the cake because it went against THEIR own beliefs.
> 
> It was no more discrimination than I have the ability to fly!


Well then why work with the public? The public who come in all shapes, sizes and sexualities. Surely they must have known they would have come across this type of thing? It doesn't affect THEM, so why refuse something which is a completely normal thing?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Indeed they should!!! So why did the buyers of the cake not turn round and say they would take their business elsewhere as they had no wish to force THEIR belief on the owners of the bakery. I'm sure there are plenty of other establishments who could have done the job.
> 
> I suppose it is easier to play the woe is me card instead and make a big deal out of it all!!


It's not a belief, it's a right to be homosexual.
Also it's not a belief, it's who you are, they are not believing to be gay, they just are, like I am white, I cannot change it and nor can they.

It is the bakery's belief, but not their right to discriminate. It is a gay couples right to be gay and receive a service.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

If the law states that as business providing a service you cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of race or disability or sex or sexuality then you cannot discriminate. Simple .

It's possible these people sought out this cake company as a means of testing the law. They have every right to do so. I recall a television programme many years ago doing a similar thing to expose discrimination against black people trying to find rental accommodation.

Homophobia, whilst strictly meaning fear of homosexuals, in real terms has come to mean hatred - I think most dictionaries define the term as such. I would imagine a genuine _clinical phobia_ of gay people is exceptionally rare!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> It's not a belief, it's a right to be homosexual.
> 
> It is the bakery's belief, but not their right to discriminate. It is a gay couples right to be gay and receive a service.


They did receive a service - the bakery were happy to make them a cake, just not happy to put wording on it that was offensive to them and what they believe in. If the bakers had been asked to put "We Love Killing Babies" on the cake, and refused, would they have been called out then? Or "All Woman are Slutty Biatches"?

Are you getting my point yet? This had nothing to do with the purchasers being gay. It was being asked to decorate a cake with words which was offensive to their beliefs. As you said before 'live & let live' so the purchaser should have been understanding of the bakers beliefs and taken their business elsewhere. But THAT wouldn't have gotten them any publicity would it???


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

It's a cake FFS!
And yes, I know some could do a rewrite of a famous poem and say....

"They came for the cake and I said nothing....
then they came for me....."

But please!
This is a publicity campaign.
It has been pushed deliberately by both sides of the argument because of the ongoing debate on gay rights in Northern Ireland.

And it has now made the news on all leading media sites.... 

I wonder what they sidelined so that they could highlight the cake debate instead?


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

(posted in error)


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

silvi said:


> It's a cake FFS!
> And yes, I know some could do a rewrite of a famous poem and say....
> 
> "They came for the cake and I said nothing....
> ...


Exactly!!!

Furthermore, ridiculous, publicity seeking cases like these undermine GENUINE discrimination issues where people have actually been verbally & physically abused. THESE are the cases that should be making the headlines are these are the ones deserving of publicity to highlight the fight to be treated fairly.

Petty cases like this just breed more intolerance.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> They did receive a service - the bakery were happy to make them a cake, just not happy to put wording on it that was offensive to them and what they believe in. If the bakers had been asked to put "We Love Killing Babies" on the cake, and refused, would they have been called out then? Or "All Woman are Slutty Biatches"?
> 
> Are you getting my point yet? This had nothing to do with the purchasers being gay. It was being asked to decorate a cake with words which was offensive to their beliefs. As you said before 'live & let live' so the purchaser should have been understanding of the bakers beliefs and taken their business elsewhere. But THAT wouldn't have gotten them any publicity would it???


I am getting your point, but to put something like 'we love killing babies', well it's illegal, it's not the same thing.

This is a right. The examples you are giving are offensive and discriminatory as opposed to not. People have the right to be gay and use a service. They asked for nothing offensive on the cake, I have seen so much worse for stag and hen dos.

Of course it has to do with them being gay. I'm sorry you are wrong and the law has proved today they were being discriminatory towards gay people.

It's right for this to garner publicity, that's how you confront prejudice, that's how you get change, you target the places that say no black people to eat here and you sit and eat there as a black person. We need to confront prejudice, not just walk away and shrug our shoulders to it.
There is no choice in being gay, there is a choice in what you choose to believe is wrong, especially this!

If they are that deeply religious do they turn away unwed mother's for their child's christening?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I am getting your point, but to put something like 'we love killing babies', well it's illegal, it's not the same thing.
> 
> This is a right. The examples you are giving are offensive and discriminatory as opposed to not. People have the right to be gay and use a service. They asked for nothing offensive on the cake, I have seen so much worse for stag and hen dos.
> 
> ...


I refer you to my post # 35. That tells you my thoughts on this.


----------



## SurfCFC (Dec 16, 2014)

It is petty, I agree to an extent, and there are cases out there that certainly deserve more attention for whatever reason, but I don't agree with people discriminating against something which is not illegal, just because 'the Bible tells me to'...


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ameliajane said:


> If the law states that as business providing a service you cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of race or disability or sex or sexuality then you cannot discriminate. Simple .
> 
> But it's not that simple is it? Suppose a paedophile wanted a dirty picture on his birthday cake? Now surely no-one would argue that a bit of butter icing could cause pain to anyone, as was the argument against my point about a vet being able to refuse to dock a puppy. Docking a puppy causes pain, so of course the vet is within their rights to object. A butter icing picture on a cake doesn't cause pain so it's not ok to refuse? Umm, where do we go from here? At some point a bit of common sense, and regard for others has to kick in, from both sides. You don't approach a Christian bakery and ask for a slogan which is against the Bible, the same as you wouldn't ask a Muslim run bakery to have a cartoon of Mohammed iced on their cakes. There is a reasonable expectation of tolerance and being allowed to live your own life your own way, and then there is expecting others to promote your way of life and take them to court if they politely turn you away. As it would say in Animal Farm, "All Animals (read People here) are equal, but some are more equal than others".


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Catharinem, paedophile and their acts are illegal and with good reason, so it doesn't equate to a gay message which is legal and the same as a straight message on a cake.
You cannot compare a cake depicting the abuse of a child to one supporting gay marriage. 

Christianity is not against people being gay, it is on equal terms in the bible to wearing a jacket made of two different threads/materials and is mentioned a lot less then the fact it is a sin to have sex before marriage, yet that seems to be overlooked and you can have a child born in sin christened.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

You are deliberately misunderstanding. The problem is being expected to promote someone else's beliefs against your own. I gave the example of a vet refusing to dock a puppy, to get the answer that docking caused pain. So my reply to that argument was that butter icing didn't cause pain, but still the image would (quite correctly) be refused - even if the customer had never abused or ever would abuse in real life. And what we call paedophilia in Britain can be legal in other countries. From going back to the report and it's reaction from various people, it appears that Gay marriage is illegal in the country the cake was requested in anyway?


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

There was no request to promote anything. Simply to bake a cake.
If the bakery had been asked to bake a cake with a message supporting heterosexual marriage they would have.
It was the fact the cake was for and about gay people that they refused.
That is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation - which is illegal.
Hence they lost the case.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

ameliajane said:


> There was no request to promote anything. Simply to bake a cake.
> If the bakery had been asked to bake a cake with a message supporting heterosexual marriage they would have.
> It was the fact the cake was for and about gay people that they refused.
> *That is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation - which is illegal.*
> Hence they lost the case.


So is religious discrimination - I think the bakery should, therefore, be counter-suing!!!


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

They could try!
But I really can't see how this is religious discrimination.
Lets say a gay baker refused to put a pro-christian message on a cake. He could also be successfully prosecuted under the law.
The law is the same for all.
Religious people do have protection from discrimination too.

I find it fascinating how something as seemingly petty as an argument about a cake actually exposes some very important legal issues!


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

emmaviolet said:


> Me too, yet somehow that seems to be a dirty word and somehow you are a bad person for it. I like to think it means you will do good just because rather then thinking a holy spirit will reward you for it!


Thats not true at all

In modern Britain most people couldn't give a monkeys if you said you were an atheist.
Heck, plenty people would tell you they are
Say you are a Christian though, that might draw attention


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

emmaviolet said:


> It's not a phobia as in a fear of heights, it is not all based on a phobia. A homophobic may not be afraid of gay people, it includes those who just hate them, no fear.


Then its not a phobia, its a hatred
So they would be homobigited, not homophobic


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

You may be right in some obscure technical sense but the dictionary defines homophobia as a fear _or hatred._


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

SurfCFC said:


> Ridiculous, in this day and age I really cannot understand people who have such prejudices. Even if people think this way, is there really any need to act upon it? I don't care what you want on the cake, if you run a business like this then you must understand that you may come across people wanting things on cakes that you don't agree with. You can't just pick and choose what suits your 'beliefs'.


Why not?

However, in that case, following your statement, I could not suit my beliefs by objecting to bake a cake that says Hitler was the greatest man ever, or cats are all pests and shouldn't be exterminated?

I'm an anti religion atheist whom thinks all religion should be removed from schools by the way


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Why not? 
Because it's against the law..?


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> You may be right in some obscure technical sense but the dictionary defines homophobia as a fear _or hatred._


Dictionaries include slang and informal or fashionable words

Its a media invented word, thats the obscure bit
Disliking homisexuals or homosexuality (important distinction) is either a bigotry/prejudice and/or religious belief.

You dont have raceophobia


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> Why not?
> Because it's against the law..?


What is?

Comments about cats?
Besides, that wasn't the point I replied to

And so what if its a law?
Can still disagree with it?
You mean there aren't any laws you disagree with?


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

emmaviolet said:


> Some, but not all and not even most. Many people who I have encountered are not scared of them, have no fearful reaction, they hold hateful feelings towards gay people or find how they live their lives wrong, but not physically fearful of them.


Then they aren't homophobic
They are just nasty bigots


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

emmaviolet said:


> So true! I do wonder if she turns away every unwed mother who asks for a christening cake too?
> 
> MAYBE THEY DO?
> AND WHY NOT?
> I really cannot understand the prejudice now either, people shoulde get over themselves and let people live the life they wish to lead.


PRECISELY

excuse caps, italics bold colours etc don't work on my phone


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

No, not comments about cats.
SurfCFC had made the point that if you run a business you may come across people wanting things you don't agree with and you can't pick and choose who you supply to based on your beliefs.
You asked 'Why not?'
That was what I was referring to.
There are certainly laws I do not agree with but this is not one of them.
It is designed to ensure we are all treated equally and businesses cannot refuse to provide you with a service solely because you are black or have a disability or are a woman or a man or are gay or straight or christian.
That, to me, seems fair .


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> They could try!
> But I really can't see how this is religious discrimination.
> Lets say a gay baker refused to put a pro-christian message on a cake. He could also be successfully prosecuted under the law.
> The law is the same for all.
> ...


a gay baker running a private business should be well within his rights to turn down making a cake with a pro Christian message
As should a straight person for that matter.
Might not make them popular, might be bad for business.
Then their problem to deal with

If any of these bakers had half a brain though, they just wouldn't tell the customer any of these reasons for turning down the job.
Makes something up.
Which is clearly what many people with belief systems up and down the land will do from now on.
So this ruling won't serve it's purpose.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Sounds good, but unfortunately this would leave some specific groups_ very_ vulnerable.
The effects would not be spread fairly!

The current system may not be perfect but I think I prefer it.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Just gonna point out that heterosexism is discrimination against homosexuals due to the fact your belief (whichever one that is -- personal or religious) says the only "normal" sexuality is heterosexuality. Homophobia is when you possess a fear of homosexuals. The term gets used incorrectly so much that the definition is changing to match heterosexism. Regardless, homophobia = fear of homosexuals, heterosexism = discrimination against homosexuals without fear.

The human rights act is the problem, as the protocols within it don't work together at all. Discrimination against an individual or group isn't allowed but being able to practise your own beliefs without fear is. How does that work? It doesn't. The act holds up in law and the case could have been argued back and fourth until a biased decision was made by somebody because of those two protocols alone.

I am not for or against homosexuality -- it isn't my business and I don't follow a religious belief system of any kind. I judge people *individually* and their ethnicity, belief and sexual orientation don't affect my judgement. I'm judging you on your behaviour, ethics, morals and approach to life. If religion was taken out of the equation, everybody would see people as people and half of the problems involving discrimination would be eradicated. Seeing as religion isn't on it's way out, the only "solution" to the discrimination problem is to change protocols within the human rights act.

I don't have an opinion on the baker. It's his business. If he wants to run it into the ground by practising his human rights by discriminating (which is against human rights...see the problem?) then so be it. It's not the customer who was refused who has just noticed a decline in sales!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Seems someones right to an opinion is being blocked.....but its the bakery's


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

And someone's right to be free of discrimination is being interfered with, too. 

ETA: @Catharinem, docking is actually illegal where I am (UK) as of 2007, though for proven working dogs some vets will dock I believe. Not sure why it's banned exactly. The breeds that are docked are typically working breeds who are at risk of breaking their tails and I would always opt to cause a bit of pain in my days-old puppy than to be in a situation in which she breaks her tail badly at an older age, possibly resulting in behaviour changes depending on the situation in which she broke her tail (I.E shut in the door could = fear of loud noises -- a very basic example!) and needs to be put under anaesthesia (a risk -- bad reactions can lead to death) to have her tail amputated (surgery = risk of infection and in my breed severe bloodloss if vWD affected but undiagnosed). Plus recovery time is difficult for a lot of active dogs.

I know that hasn't got anything to do with this thread itself, but being the owner of working terriers (one of whom is old enough to have been docked) and a Doberman with a really active working lifestyle and an active tail, I can confirm that the struggle is real! Two of my last Dobes have broken their tails -- one doing a basic agility run (hit it on the A-frame as she came round) and the other just by falling weirdly while playing with other dogs. My terriers have slightly thicker tails and they don't have enough oomph to break them as easily, but I still worry when I am working them.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Anybody else lost the very important and relevant points in this thread coz they are thinking about their favourite cake??rool

Nope?, just me then........:Bear

*gets coat*:Bag


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Seems someones right to an opinion is being blocked.....but its the bakery's_

The bakery happens to be owned and run by a family with certain beliefs but it does not advertise or promote itself as a Christian bakery. The essence of the ruling is that the individuals held the belief, not the business. There is a Christian bookshop in a town near me, clearly signed as such, it is in fact called 'The Christian Bookshop'. I'd imagine its customer base is pretty limited and any business is allowed to narrow its market in such a way. It would be perfectly OK for that shop to refuse to order certain publications if asked on religious grounds and there could not be a case for discrimination.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I dont object to anyones sexual bent, its having it thrust at me and being told I would be wrong to express an anti opinion that is galling

sex is private, why do they want it so public?


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

I don't think anybody wants sex to be public!

People are just asking for all to be treated equally.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Im sure sometimes some go out of their way to find trouble and the publicity that goes with it


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

ameliajane said:


> I don't think anybody wants sex to be public!
> 
> *People are just asking for all to be treated equally*.


So why didn't the gay couple give the same respect to the Christians beliefs as they were demanding for their own?

If I went to a bakers shop and asked for a cake to be decorated with a large bit of male genitalia, and they advised they would feel uncomfortable producing such a cake due to their religious beliefs, I would be disappointed but I would respect their rights to follow their beliefs and to refuse my request on those grounds. I sure as heck would not be dragging them through the courts giving it the screaming ab-dabs about my human rights being violated.

This is just another example of the "Human Rights" act being abused.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> I dont object to anyones sexual bent, its having it thrust at me and being told I would be wrong to express an anti opinion that is galling
> 
> sex is private, why do they want it so public?


Their sex wasn't in public, it is no different to making a straight wedding cake celebrating the sex of two straight people, the cake has nothing to do with sex at all.



MoggyBaby said:


> So why didn't the gay couple give the same respect to the Christians beliefs as they were demanding for their own?
> 
> If I went to a bakers shop and asked for a cake to be decorated with a large bit of male genitalia, and they advised they would feel uncomfortable producing such a cake due to their religious beliefs, I would be disappointed but I would respect their rights to follow their beliefs and to refuse my request on those grounds. I sure as heck would not be dragging them through the courts giving it the screaming ab-dabs about my human rights being violated.
> 
> This is just another example of the "Human Rights" act being abused.


No, it's not human rights being abused, it is using them correctly and rightly, it is unfair to discriminate due to sexual preference. It is only fair that people should be treated equally by a business that is open to the public, it is our human right.

It is different to asking for an obscene cake, there was nothing obscene about it, if they will do a cake for a straight relationship/marriage, then they should do one for a gay couple. There is no difference between a gay and a straight couple and people should not be made to feel ashamed for what they were born.
If they have a problem with it, they shouldn't run a business.
The reason why they are not being allowed the same tolerance is because religion and beliefs are a choice, as is opening up a business to the general public, sexuality is not a choice by the individual and they should be allowed to use the business the same as a straight couple. The court has decided they discriminated against them.

The bible also states women should not weave their hair or wear expensive clothes or gold. I doubt they follow these rules and turn away customers who wear these things.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

What if the shop had refused to do a wedding cake because of the couple's race? It's exactly the same law. I think it being a family business is confusing people. It's no different than if they were unrelated employees.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

It is the same as the shop refusing to cater to black people, and for the same reasons. The human rights act says you're allowed to express yourself freely without fear, and it also says you're not allowed to discriminate. You can't have both if you've got a problem with someone's ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc. It's not human rights being *abused*, it's just the protocols themselves saying you can't express something at the same time as saying you're allowed to express whatever belief you want.

People are exercising their human rights. The problem is the rights are contradictory. They would have to be amended, which would mean removing or restricting one of the two human rights I've talked about, or adding a new one. A case of Person #1 saying "you're not granting me my human rights" and Person #2 saying the exact same thing, with both people being right.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Storm in teacup. As mentioned, this has been massively overblown for publicity on a topical issue. 

Would they have gone into a Jewish or Muslim bakery for the wording they wanted? If they'd been told to get lost, fair play. If the baker doesn't want to do it, fine, go to Asda or somewhere you can do it yourself. They've deliberately made a big thing of it purely for the publicity. 

Respect their rights, yes, but what about the rights of the baker, small business, I'm guessing? The paltry £500 awarded by the court is a token tiny amount, deliberately so, I feel.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_The human rights act says you're allowed to express yourself freely without fear, and it also says you're not allowed to discriminate._
The two things are not contradictory. The staff in the shop were perfectly within their rights to discuss how unsavoury they found the whole idea - whilst treating this order exactly the same as they would an order from a heterosexual couple.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_The paltry £500 awarded by the court is a token tiny amount, deliberately so, I feel._
Unless there was a very unusual award for costs as they usually follow the case then the £500 is hardly going to be the point.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

If it's against whatever beliefs they hold to support gay rights, then the human rights act says it protects them (freedom of expression). It also says it protects the people they won't serve from discrimination.

It simply doesn't work.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

So how would it work if it was a guy that had been raped as a child. Apparently there are 100s of thousands of those about 
Would he still not be allowed to voice any concerns? 
Are the sensibilities of a gay person more important?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> No matter what they say they are homophobic.
> 
> To use Christianity is a poor excuse, especially as a business, you cannot dictate how people live their lives if you are just baking a cake. If they had of refused them if they were black it wouldn't be ok and it's not because they are gay either.
> 
> ...


Actually the bible does look at Leviticus 20 v 13.
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense

At this point let me make it *VERY, VERY, CLEAR* that this is *NOT* my view..


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_If it's against whatever beliefs they hold to support gay rights, then the human rights act says it protects them (freedom of expression)._
There's no issue of being forced to support anything. If I make a cake for someone with a slogan stating the moon is made of green cheese it doesn't mean I support that belief.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Providing the cake that is advocating gay marriage will be supporting it.

ETA: @rona, that would still be discrimination.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> So how would it work if it was a guy that had been raped as a child. Apparently there are 100s of thousands of those about
> Would he still not be allowed to voice any concerns?
> Are the sensibilities of a gay person more important?


I don't understand this view Rona?
As awful as it is for men who have been raped, it has nothing to do with the gay community as it wouldn't if a woman worked in the bakery and was raped by a straight man and a different straight man wanted a cake.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I don't understand this view Rona?
> As awful as it is for men who have been raped, it has nothing to do with the gay community as it wouldn't if a woman worked in the bakery and was raped by a straight man and a different straight man wanted a cake.


But surely that is a valid reason to be homophobic in the true sense of the word.......fearful


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

That would be a reason to be homophobic...But it's still discrimination. I didn't realise we were talking about homophobia vs. heterosexism again, sorry.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

northnsouth said:


> Actually the bible does look at Leviticus 20 v 13.
> "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense
> 
> At this point let me make it *VERY, VERY, CLEAR* that this is *NOT* my view..


In it's original I believe it says lieth with a man, so there are some that debate what that even means.
Compared to how many times it is insisted upon how much of a sin sex before marriage is and how many people get married after having children and they are christened too I don't believe people truly follow the bible.

It also states women shouldn't braid their hair nor wear expensive clothes nor clothes made of different cloth. People pick and choose in religion what bits of it take their fancy or fit in with what they want to believe. It's personally why I find it farcical and most followers hypocrites who pick and choose.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The case is nothing to do with personal views, it's about protected characteristics. Both religion AND sexual orientation are protected characteristics. IF the shop had declared itself as a Christian business before the order was placed then it would have been able to refuse on grounds of religion. What it did was try to use a protected characteristic after the event as a defence which isn't the same thing at all.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> But surely that is a valid reason to be homophobic in the true sense of the word.......fearful


Phobic of a person who is gay, yes, but scared to put something on a cake, doubtful. A cake will not harm them.

Again, there are women, many women who no doubt also work in bakeries and bake wedding cakes for men and women (by the stats on how many women have been raped odds are quite a few do work in bakeries). So these women work on a man to woman's wedding cake everyday.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> In it's original I believe it says lieth with a man, so there are some that debate what that even means.
> Compared to how many times it is insisted upon how much of a sin sex before marriage is and how many people get married after having children and they are christened too I don't believe people truly follow the bible.
> 
> It also states women shouldn't braid their hair nor wear expensive clothes nor clothes made of different cloth. People pick and choose in religion what bits of it take their fancy or fit in with what they want to believe. It's personally why I find it farcical and most followers hypocrites who pick and choose.


I could not agree with you more Just another of the many contradictions.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

See, I’m 100% in support of gay marriage, and not discriminating based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc., however this one is not so clear cut for me.

On the one hand, I say a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they choose. That’s the “freedom” of privately owned businesses. 
A dog trainer should be able to say “nope, not gonna work with you if you’re just going to go home and repeat the lesson with a shock collar." A hairdresser should be able to say “nope, not gonna cut your hair in a reverse mow hawk, we are a high-end salon, and I don’t want to be associated with such a look.” I can come up with other examples, but you get the idea, my business, my choice.
Likewise the customer is free to choose another business that will take their request.

In theory the above should work.

But there are two main ways the above doesn’t work so well in practice. 
One, if everyone in town refuses service to the same person, now we have a major issue. If bakery X says “no cake” but bakery Y is fine with the cake, then bakery X just loses business. However, if no bakery in town will cater to homosexuals just because they are homosexuals, then we have real discrimination (and the reason why these laws are in place to begin with). 
It’s like so many things, a matter of degrees. If there is pervasive discrimination in all areas, of the same group of people, that’s a major issue that as a civilized society we need to address. 
The other issue (for me) is when the discrimination is based on something out of the person’s control. 
This one gets sticky when it comes to homosexuality, I believe it is not a choice, but others might disagree, so let’s take something like a physical disability. Let’s take someone with an amputation for example. Would people be okay with a business refusing service to someone because they only had one leg? What if a shoe store refused to sell shoes to a one-legged person? Or a bicycle shop? What if the bicycle shop cited safety reasons for refusing the sale? It all gets much more complicated once you start looking at the possible scenarios. These things are never as black and white as they seem.

Me? I’d just boycott that bakery and encourage my friends to do the same. And if I have a lot of friends who have a lot of kids with a lot of birthdays, I bet my little boycott would be far more effective than a court case... Money talks


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Bakers did not refuse to serve their clients but just refused the wording...lf I was to put a message I do not wish to put ( I have seen hate cakes with insults)...then aI would ask clients to choose somewhere else.

Say someone wanted: "kill foxes" on cake?
Would you go to Muslim bakery asking for cartoon pic of the prophet?

Many Christians support gay marriage..but some do not.They would not be my choice for hen night party either.

So if they refused such cake would there be so much hullabaloo about it?

PS Child born out of wedlock can be baptised as it cannot bear responsibility for their parents' sin...and anyhow we all are born sinners with original sin, which I erased by baptism.

Baptism is usually accompanied by suitable cake..Jewish bakery here does them nicely, cross and all. Business is business


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> Compared to how many times it is insisted upon how much of a sin sex before marriage is and how many people get married after having children and they are christened too I don't believe people truly follow the bible.


But in Christianity, being gay is seen as wrong. There can't be a debate about this, sorry, because it's one of the big 
precepts of the Christian religion. Sex before marriage is also a son, but a worse sin not to christen a baby who is born with original sin so must be christened to ensure the soul goes to heaven if the child dies. And actually, some people do follow the bible. Some don't, but it's unfair to dismiss all Christians because some don't follow the ideology.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

This wasn't a Christian bakery. 
And nobody was asking for messages about killing.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> So if they refused such cake would there be so much hullabaloo about it?


What I find incredibly hard to understand is why there is such a hullabaloo about simply asking to be treated equally.
Isn't there something in Christianity about that?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> But in Christianity, being gay is seen as wrong. There can't be a debate about this, sorry, because it's one of the big
> precepts of the Christian religion. Sex before marriage is also a son, but a worse sin not to christen a baby who is born with original sin so must be christened to ensure the soul goes to heaven if the child dies. And actually, some people do follow the bible. Some don't, but it's unfair to dismiss all Christians because some don't follow the ideology.


It's not one of the big issues in the bible, it's barely mentioned and it may have been interpreted as being wrong, but then the bible says all number of things are wrong that people (christians) do.

I know a lot of Christians, I know none who never braid their hair because it says so in the bible, none who do not mix fabric on their jackets.

Nobody follows the book, they truly don't, because it also says sinners should be burnt and hopefully nobody is doing that.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

ameliajane said:


> What I find incredibly hard to understand is why there is such a hullabaloo about simply asking to be treated equally.
> Isn't there something in Christianity about that?


What it has to do with equality? If they were refused to be served because they are gay then yes.
But to be refused message? Obviously I do not agree with their point of view same like with Jehovah or Muslim but will not go to them asking for something I know their religion forbids. Would you ask Jehovah witness to put a message about donating blood? 
I would not though I support blood donors!...Some beliefs might be stupid to us who do not share them..but why look for offence ?


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

northnsouth said:


> Actually the bible does look at Leviticus 20 v 13.
> "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense
> 
> At this point let me make it *VERY, VERY, CLEAR* that this is *NOT* my view..


mmmm.... I wonder how many people who persecute homosexuality based on this bible verse would also condemn ANYONE doing ANY of the following (based on Leviticus obviously):

*Eating fat and blackpudding (Leviticus 3 v 17):* It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
*Having messy hair, not wearing a hat and not having tidy clothes (Leviticus 10 v 6):* Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people
*Taking holy communion (Leviticus 10 v 6)*: Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you don't die
*Eating prawns (Leviticus 10 v 6): *All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you.
*Going to church within 40 days after giving birth to a boy (Leviticus 12 v 2-5): *"Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean. 3 In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 She shall continue in the blood of purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.
*Going to church within 80 days after giving birth to a girl! (Leviticus 12 v 2-5): *But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days.

y know, i could continue.....

the fact is, the law in the uk states that you cannot discriminate against someone by

direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
a protected characteristic is: 

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
The gentleman who ordered the cake did not discriminate against the shop as he was not offering them a service/product and treated them no differently than he would have any other shop.. The shop - who exists to offer services/products to consumers - did discriminate against the gay gentleman as they refused to offer a service to them that they would have offered to a hetrosexual organisation requesting a product for their non profit event. therefore it is discrimination

Having said that, I do believe that some people are going out and out to try and trip up some businesses by putting them in situations where they feel they may refuse - often just to proove a point. I wonder how many cakes they got before someone refused


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> No matter what they say they are homophobic.
> 
> To use Christianity is a poor excuse, especially as a business, you cannot dictate how people live their lives if you are just baking a cake. If they had of refused them if they were black it wouldn't be ok and it's not because they are gay either.
> 
> ...


*Not true. Take a look..*
*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ I bet my little boycott would be far more effective than a court case..._
Really? You bet your little boycott would hit the headlines and just as effectively highlight the fact that NI is the only part of the UK where gay marriage is still not legal?


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> What it has to do with equality?


It's absolutely fundamental to equality.
This was about establishing whether a person can use their own personal beliefs as a reason to discriminate. If people are allowed to do this equality laws would be toothless. There have been several similar cases in the USA that have gone the same way. I gather this was the first in the UK and so sets a precedent.
This was not just a row about cakes!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I gather this was the first in the UK and so sets a precedent.
This was not just a row about cakes!_
It absolutely wasn't about cakes and is part of a much bigger fight which has been fought and won in the rest of the UK.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I find it quite sad that it's ok to make sweeping and negative comments about Christians whilst at the same time defending the rights of others.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I find it quite sad that it's ok to make sweeping and negative comments about Christians_
Negative comments have been against hypocrisy and bigotry, not against Christians.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Their sex wasn't in public, it is no different to making a straight wedding cake celebrating the sex of two straight people, the cake has nothing to do with sex at all.


To me they appear to have rather a warped view about marriage, why would you want a political sound bite on your wedding cake. If a straight couple wanted "support marriage between a man and a woman" on their cake most people would think how inappropriate/tacky but no doubt there would be a perpetually offended person leaping up and down saying it was anti-gay and they would insist on a prosecution for the discriminatory message



Colliebarmy said:


> Im sure sometimes some go out of their way to find trouble and the publicity that goes with it


Quite, they were being deliberately provocative.

Elsewhere in the world gay people live in fear - ISIS are throwing gays off buildings - yet rather than rally together to try to help them they focus their attention and outrage on a damn cake


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

So if it was about blood donation and Jehovah witness refused to put this message would they discriminate blood donors?
I do believe that muslim may refuse to sell pork in their shops.

Though I think pork is fine but I respect their beliefs.
People have to serve everyone in their shops...but they have right to decide what products they sell.
Equality has nothing to do with it.Gay people should be respected. Religious people should be respected just as well...even if it is not so cool , even if many think their beliefs are plain silly.
You cannot grant rights to one not to the other....

Simples.
That row is plainly ridiculous media hype and actually undermines the importance of equality issue.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

The message refused was "Support Gay Marriage" if the cake photo attached to the first post on this thread is the cake requested. Not only is that anti Christian, but (at the moment at least) illegal in the country the cake was requested in (Gay Marriage is illegal, not a request to support it). Not sure why all this hullabaloo over the bakery refusing to promote a cause which is not only against their own beliefs but illegal too. I suggested a paedophile wanting "dirty picture" cake would (rightly) be refused, but the reply on this forum was " paedophilia is illegal, homosexuality isn't." Fair point, but gay marriage IS illegal in N. Ireland at the present time. So they are "promoting their cause" and asking N. Ireland to join the rest of the UK in making it legal. To which I say ( firmly playing Devil's advocate, not my own belief), let's ask a bakery to bake a cake promoting lowering the age of consent to 12, and get the UK more in line with other countries around the world - Angola 12, Japan 13, China, Brazil, Peru 14. America by the way has different ages of consent depending on what state you are in! You see it starts to get fuzzy? How many of you arguing for someone's right to ask a bakery for a cake to promote a cause which is currently illegal, but legal elsewhere, would be comfortable with supporting a paedophile in his (or her) campaign to lower the age of consent to one legal elsewhere? If a paedophile were to ask for a cake to be baked with the slogan "Lower The Age of Consent to 12", would it be the bakery's right to refuse him (her)? After all, isn't that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality? He (she) is only promoting a cause to bring the UK in line with other countries, as the gay customer was only promoting a cause to bring N. Ireland in line with the rest of Britain. How many of you would feel comfortable now with that person's right to receive a service, or do you think he (she) should be turned away? I believe that someone should have the right to refuse to support a cause they believe to be wrong, and for different people the line will be in a different place. I hope we all agree sex with a toddler is wrong, and in my opinion should result in a life sentence with no chance of parole ( others of you might say provide help in prison and hope to release, others might say bring back the death penalty). But what about an 8 year old? A 12 year old (legal in Angola?), 13, 14? Should an Angolan man with a 12 year old wife travelling to Britain on holiday be imprisoned if he has sex with his legal wife whilst here ? And so on... There has to be room in a tolerant world for custom to be refused if by providing that custom the person providing it is forced to go against their beliefs. I'm not suggesting the gay customer should have been arrested, thrown in prison, "put to death as an abomination", but I think it reasonable for someone to refuse to decorate a cake for him without they themselves being hauled up before the courts!


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

havoc said:


> _ I bet my little boycott would be far more effective than a court case..._
> Really? You bet your little boycott would hit the headlines and just as effectively highlight the fact that NI is the only part of the UK where gay marriage is still not legal?


Read what I wrote in it's entirety and in context. 


ouesi said:


> And if I have a lot of friends who have a lot of kids with a lot of birthdays, I bet my little boycott would be far more effective than a court case... Money talks


It was hypothetical for one, I'm not even in the UK so obviously I'm not the one doing the boycotting. Plus, I said IF. IF I had a lot of friends who had a lot of kids etc., etc. I also said *money talks*. Meaning for that small business, the loss of income from a significant portion of the town's clientele is probably going to matter more to them than the opinion of a judge.

The bakery has nothing to do with NI not allowing gay marriage. Though interesting that you should mention NI's laws, because the last time I got on my gay rights soap box on this forum, and the role religion plays in discrimination of gays, I was told that my soap box had no place on a UK forum because gay marriage is legal in the UK and that gays aren't discriminated against. Too bad the search function sucks now because I would go back and find that thread.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Just a question to those saying homosexuality is against Christian faith. Isn’t it also contrary to Christian beliefs to judge others? Didn’t Jesus set the example by hanging out with lepers, prostitutes, and thieves? That it’s not for us to decide who is a sinner or even what is the worst sin - you know, “He that is without sin cast the first stone” and all that? What makes a Christian think they know better than the teachings of Christ himself?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Imagine the same bakery refusing to make penis shaped cake for hen night?
Are they discriminating against genitalia? 
Can imagine religious folk may refuse to put many images on their cakes...so drag them to the court for it?


When my gay friend came out his parents threw him out and he was a student and penniless. He came to live with us until he graduated and I got a job with open minded boss. Been on pro gay campaign since my teens..in country which banned Teletubbies for being gay.
But that is ridiculous.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> Imagine the same bakery refusing to make penis shaped cake for hen night?
> Are they discriminating against genitalia?


Meh... genitalia are everywhere  These were supposed to be cute little piggies


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Just a question to those saying homosexuality is against Christian faith. Isn't it also contrary to Christian beliefs to judge others? Didn't Jesus set the example by hanging out with lepers, prostitutes, and thieves? That it's not for us to decide who is a sinner or even what is the worst sin - you know, "He that is without sin cast the first stone" and all that? What makes a Christian think they know better than the teachings of Christ himself?


 Quite so, he did set the example, he did not promote the deeds. The woman was condemmed to death by stoning. After telling the crowd to cast the first stone if they were without sin they left one by one until he was left alone in the court with the woman. He turned to her and said "go now, and sin no more". He might have "hung out" with thieves as you put it, he didn't join their robber band! Love and forgiveness of a person are different to agreeing with/supporting their actions. You ought to know that as a mum! The prostitute got away with her life thanks to his intervention, then was warned to change her future behaviour. Christian's don't think they know better than Christ, but they are weaker and have their own faults. However you should fully study a religion and it's teachings before trying to pick it apart, don't quote "He that is without sin cast the first stone" without the followthrough "Go now and sin no more".


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Meh... genitalia are everywhere  These were supposed to be cute little piggies


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I've never seen any like this! If they look like that to you they seem a bit, umm lopsided? And a bit tired?


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> He might have "hung out" with thieves as you put it, he didn't join their robber band! Love and forgiveness of a person are different to agreeing with/supporting their actions. You ought to know that as a mum!


First off, me being a mother has nothing to do with this conversation, and the implication that I don't know how to be a proper mother most definitely has no place in this conversation. I have not made anything personal, I ask that you do the same.

Secondly, you say Jesus didn't join the robbers - right... So a gay person asking someone to bake a cake is not exactly asking them to be gay is it? They asked for a cake, not a blow job. Good grief LOL


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> First off, me being a mother has nothing to do with this conversation, and the implication that I don't know how to be a proper mother most definitely has no place in this conversation. I have not made anything personal, I ask that you do the same.
> 
> Secondly, you say Jesus didn't join the robbers - right... So a gay person asking someone to bake a cake is not exactly asking them to be gay is it? They asked for a cake, not a blow job. Good grief LOL


Whoaa, back up! I never said you weren't a proper mother. I said that as a mother you ought to know that love and forgiveness are different from condoning the actions of people you love, as Jesus would love sinners but not their sin. Poor choice of words maybe, but actually saying that you'd be the kind of mum to love your kids whatever, so take a compliment when you misread one! For the record, from what I've read of your posts (bearing in mind I don't know you personally) I think you're a great mum! Jesus didn't join the robbers, neither did he encourage others to join them. Baking a cake fine, writing "Support Gay Marriage" all over it IS asking them to support it, and write a message encouraging others to support it. The problem isn't being gay, being straight, being black, being white, being religious, being full of free love, it's being told to write something you don't believe in, and taken to court if you don't.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

This isn't about an ordinary couple getting upset about the refusal to print something on a cake - it was activists specifically targeting a small family business they knew were christians to provoke, bully and ultimately take to them to court. That type of aggressive intolerance may well ultimately backfire and damage the progress that has been made over the years. In N Ireland it could even influence the vote re same sex marriage that is due shortly.

If there was such a thing as "straight rights activists" and they sought out a bakery run by gay owners and asked for a cake promoting Christian hetrosexual marriage I am pretty sure we would think what intolerant idiots.

I wonder what the activists would have done had the bakery produced the cake with the wording they had asked for, but also iced on a disclaimer _"the sentiment expressed is that of the purchaser and not the bakery as we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman"_


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ Baking a cake fine, writing "Support Gay Marriage" all over it IS asking them to support it,_
So if I ask them for a cake for a Halloween party with witches and ghosts on it that would mean they're being made to support the occult? How's about they're asked to put a photo of a child with the words 'to my beautiful daughter' and the child is butt ugly?


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> The problem isn't being gay, being straight, being black, being white, being religious, being full of free love, it's being told to write something you don't believe in, and taken to court if you don't.


I actually support the bakery's right to refuse service as I said in my first post.
In the same way I support a dog trainer refusing to work with a client who won't give up the shock collar, or a high end hair salon refusing to cut a reverse mow hawk on a client. 
I personally don't agree with the bakery's beliefs but as Voltaire so eloquently said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (Okay except the death part, I won't defend this bakery to the death, I'm no where near that passionate.)

However, it seems to me that the bakery DID make it about religion as soon as they said they wouldn't make the cake because it goes against what the bible teaches. Now they're in religious discrimination area and they kind of dug themselves a hole. Had they just said, "we don't make that kind of cake, but how about Fred down the street? They're much better with fondant" or something to that effect, I doubt it would have gone to court. But I'm no legal eagle, so I really don't know...


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

havoc said:


> _ Baking a cake fine, writing "Support Gay Marriage" all over it IS asking them to support it,_
> So if I ask them for a cake for a Halloween party with witches and ghosts on it that would mean they're being made to support the occult?


They would probably advise that they don't sell such items and direct you to another bakery that does.



> How's about they're asked to put a photo of a child with the words 'to my beautiful daughter' and the child is butt ugly?


Being Christians I expect they would look past her shallow physical appearance and appreciate that she is beautiful inside as that is what really matters.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

This case was taken on by the Northern Ireland Equalities Commission to establish whether a person can use their own personal beliefs to justify discrimination.

It was not about persecuting anybody. It was done to establish a precedent and clarify the law.

The bakery had the support of the Christian Institute. Similar cases have been fought in America with the same outcome.

All those concerned knew exactly what they were doing and why.

And, incidentally, this bakery do indeed bake Halloween cakes - I gather they even produce a leaflet that _promotes_ their Halloween cakes...


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Halloween isnt a sexual date on the calendar, its All Hallows Eve


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ Had they just said, "we don't make that kind of cake, but how about Fred down the street? They're much better with fondant" or something to that effect, I doubt it would have gone to court_
Probably right but this bakery was targeted exactly because of the known prejudice and intolerant views of the owners/employees. What you have to realise is that they believe they are right just as a racist believes they are superior so they delighted in arrogant refusal. NI is in many ways worse than the bible belt of the USA.

_And, incidentally, this bakery do indeed bake Halloween cakes..._
I know


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Halloween isnt a sexual date on the calendar,


You are _very_ obsessed with sex...


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> You are _very_ obsessed with sex...


It is strange how the whole objection to homosexuality seems to be about sex isn't it?
I don't think it's the loving the same sex part that's an issue, Jesus certainly loved his disciples, and they him, that was fine. Just don't have sex *that* way. 
Which is weird, because there are plenty of heterosexual couples out there having oral and anal sex. So, how can you be sure the heterosexual couple you're welcoming in to your bakery isn't also having anal sex? How can you be sure that rainbow butterfly cake they asked you to make doesn't have some message in it about fellatio?

Asking someone to decorate a cake is not asking them to support the message on the cake. It's simply asking a business to provide a service which they will be paid for. And yes, if the bakery wants to refuse service, they should have that right. After all, they're the ones losing the client.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_And yes, if the bakery wants to refuse service, they should have that right. After all, they're the ones losing the client._
Absolutely right - as long as the reason for refusal is not discriminatory as defined in law. It would be lovely if such law wasn't necessary but it is. Whether or not you agree with the list of protected characteristics that's what we have and it has been compiled through necessity. Without it there would be very few independent women - a woman had to leave work upon marriage in most organisations not so many decades ago and a single woman couldn't get a mortgage no matter how much she earned. It's that self same law which protects us against discrimination on grounds of gender.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

So pro hunt lobby wants to bring my business down..ask me to.write "kill the fox" no matter foxhunt is illegal...and if I refuse take me to court?

Now same activists should go to muslim bakery and ask for cake with cartoon of a prophet.


Maybe people in NI can find better ways to support gay marriage than fighting against small bakery?


Cannot they tolerate that some people have different beliefs to theirs?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Being Christians I expect they would look past her shallow physical appearance and appreciate that she is beautiful inside as that is what really matters.


Then why not be christian and overlook being homosexual. They are not asking them to join in with their homosexuality, only for a cake.

They clearly do not follow Leviiticus anyway, the man has a clean shaved face and short hair. Very hypocritical of them to follow one statement in it but not the others.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

If you were to ask for a cake with 'kill foxes' or a picture of a cartoon of a prophet it would be up to the bakery to decide whether they wished to go ahead with your request and if they declined it would be up to you to decide whether to pursue the matter.

I'm not sure why you would wish to request either of the above or what grounds you would have for perusing either case if they were refused. Would either of these be covered by any law? I think you would need to consult a lawyer.

The outcome of this particular case does not mean businesses cannot refuse _any_ requests.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Meh... genitalia are everywhere  These were supposed to be cute little piggies





Catharinem said:


> I've never seen any like this! If they look like that to you they seem a bit, umm lopsided? And a bit tired?


I'm a nurse - and most of them look _exactly _like this...


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

emmaviolet said:


> Then why not be christian and overlook being homosexual. They are not asking them to join in with their homosexuality, only for a cake.
> 
> They clearly do not follow Leviiticus anyway, the man has a clean shaved face and short hair. Very hypocritical of them to follow one statement in it but not the others.


As an anti christian myself, that is quite simple to work out and answer
Homosexuality is against their religion -. thats it
Many Christians will love homosexuals, as they love mankind as Jesus did (as they say), but hate the act of homosexuality, as that's in the sin list.
("Love the sinner, not the sin")
As its in the bible, therefore, that counts as _'being a christian'_ too. 
So there you go, I dont geddit, I dont agree with it. But its not up to me to define, determine, qualify, or argue what "being a christian" means, as Im not one.
And from their point a view, they have a logic, which says the bible says homosexuality is a sin.
Its not my logic, or the logic of mankind, but there you go. But so what?

There business what they want to think. As far as I'm concerned, their private religious practices should have nothing to do with the State, which means complete separation of Church and State, which means no religious lessons or assemblies in schools, no bishops in parliaments, and so on, and likewise, just as Religion should have no influence on the public affairs of State, the public State should have no influence upon private affairs of religion, which includes no laws telling people how, when, and what they can believe. You cant have separation of church and state, then expect the state to get involved with church. 
_Cant have your cake and eat it!!!_
As long as both ends of the arrangement go as far as preventing actual criminal acts, and by this, i mean proper crime, not objecting to write on a cake.

So as far as i'm concerned, if Christians or Muslims want to have barmy ideas about drawings of Mohammed and messages on a cake, I'm not gonna come over all Orwellian about it, its none of my business, as long as they don't break any true crime laws - _as opposed to thought crime laws_ - or they dont think they can enforce such ideas upon society as law of the land.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

havoc said:


> What you have to realise is that they believe they are right just as a racist believes they are superior so they delighted in arrogant refusal.


As much as it pains me to say it, a racist has a right to believe they are superior. In a free society you can't legislate *thoughts*.

What you can (and should) legislate is behavior. So while a person may have a right to believe homosexuals are sinners (whatever that means) they do not have a right to discriminate against someone based on their beliefs.

Where it gets muddy is whether or not refusing service in itself constitutes discrimination. In this case, by saying "it goes against what the bible teaches" it does become religious discrimination. I don't know why the bakery had to day that. They could have just said, "no" and left it at that.

But.... given that the couple could have gone to any other bakery in town and gotten a cake decorated, is it really that big of a deal?
I fully understand why anti-discrimination laws exist, and if this were a case where every bakery in town is refusing any service to a group of people, then yes, we have a major big deal that needs to be addressed. Or if we were talking about a government service instead of a private business. But since neither is the case, "pick your battles" comes to mind. Then again, I guess they did eh?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Erenya said:


> the fact is, the law in the uk states that you cannot discriminate against someone by
> 
> direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
> indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
> ...


That's helpful, thanks. It clearly shows that some of the analogies being draw are not useful. So if I go to a Muslim baker and ask for a cake with a cartoon of the prophet they have every right to refuse me because 'liking cartoons' is not a protected characteristic. Not at all the same thing as 'support gay marriage' being written on the cake because sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.

How far does it go though, I wonder? If I want a cake with 'lower the age of consent to 2' or 'legalise sheep [email protected]' on it, do they have to make that? Would refusal be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation being protected?


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

ouesi said:


> "pick your battles" comes to mind. Then again, I guess they did eh?


Both sides did!


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

havoc said:


> Absolutely right - as long as the reason for refusal is not discriminatory as defined in law. It would be lovely if such law wasn't necessary but it is. Whether or not you agree with the list of protected characteristics that's what we have and it has been compiled through necessity. Without it there would be very few independent women - a woman had to leave work upon marriage in most organisations not so many decades ago and a single woman couldn't get a mortgage no matter how much she earned. It's that self same law which protects us against discrimination on grounds of gender.


Why are you quoting me and directing this at me? Did you read my posts?


ouesi said:


> if everyone in town refuses service to the same person, now we have a major issue. If bakery X says "no cake" but bakery Y is fine with the cake, then bakery X just loses business. However, if no bakery in town will cater to homosexuals just because they are homosexuals, then we have real discrimination (and the reason why these laws are in place to begin with).


I have a pretty clear understanding of why anti-discrimination laws exist, thanks


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> Both sides did!


That's what I said.
Am I typing in invisible font again? :Bag


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Satori said:


> How far does it go though, I wonder? If I want a cake with 'lower the age of consent to 2' or 'legalise sheep [email protected]' on it, do they have to make that? Would refusal be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation being protected?


Those two examples both relate to illegal activities. 
So I'd don't think you'd get very far with those cases either!

The media are going a bit loopy with the whole 'Where will it all end...!!!' argument at the moment. 
In reality I can't see people rushing out to bakers to make bizarre cake requests as a result of this case...


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

Satori said:


> How far does it go though, I wonder? If I want a cake with 'lower the age of consent to 2' or 'legalise sheep [email protected]' on it, do they have to make that? Would refusal be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation being protected?


I doubt it would be, as the two things you have mentioned are defined under law as criminal activity.

Gay marriage was never a criminal activity, it just wasn't possible to get a marriage license as the legal definition for marriage in the UK was one man and one woman - so therefore it was impossible to be married and gay. As such, supporting gay marriage is not supporting a criminal act, it's attempting to overturn a legislative impossibility - if that makes sense.

Clearly before the 60s, when being gay was a criminal act, it would have been a very different story.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Satori said:


> How far does it go though, I wonder?


Ah yes... the "where will it all end" argument. The "if we tolerate homosexuality, who's to say it won't turn in to pedophilia and bestiality" argument.
*sigh* :Meh

Okay. Homosexuality is a mutually consensual relationship with an adult of the same gender. The key words here are consent and adults. 
There is NO connection nor reason to make a connection between homosexuality and children or animals. No adult, no consent, no relationship. It's really that simple.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Ah yes... the "where will it all end" argument. The "if we tolerate homosexuality, who's to say it won't turn in to pedophilia and bestiality" argument.
> *sigh* :Meh
> 
> Okay. Homosexuality is a mutually consensual relationship with an adult of the same gender. The key words here are consent and adults.
> There is NO connection nor reason to make a connection between homosexuality and children or animals. No adult, no consent, no relationship. It's really that simple.


I agree and have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable with all of the, "but what if paedophiles want THEIR sexuality on a cake too!" Or the argument that a pro-gay cake might make a man who'd been molested as a child have flashbacks and want to refuse. Paedophilia is not the same as homosexuality, why equate the two?

BTW I don't think you've been using invisible font, I think people have maybe just been agreeing with you (I know, not something you're used to in General )


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Mulish said:


> I agree and have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable with all of the, "but what if paedophiles want THEIR sexuality on a cake too!" Or the argument that a pro-gay cake might make a man who'd been molested as a child have flashbacks and want to refuse. Paedophilia is not the same as homosexuality, why equate the two?
> 
> BTW I don't think you've been using invisible font, I think people have maybe just been agreeing with you (I know, not something you're used to in General )


LOL you're probably right about not being used to having people agree with me 

And I'm not sure how the law works, but it seems to me that the bakery *could* have refused to make the cake. They just couldn't refuse based on religious beliefs. 
So going by that, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would be forced to make any cake with any message they don't like.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

From what I've read in the press, both sides are playing the game to gain maximum exposure for their political aims. The bakery could very easily have come up with a legal reason for refusing the order, the complainant almost certainly picked on a bakery he knew would object.

What's really pulled me into this is:



> So how would it work if it was a guy that had been raped as a child. Apparently there are 100s of thousands of those about
> Would he still not be allowed to voice any concerns?
> Are the sensibilities of a gay person more important?


I find it frankly breath-taking that homosexuality is being related to paedophilia! Not least considering that the offense (against boys or girls) rarely seems to have a direct correlation to the offender's sexual orientation with adult partners.

Victims of sexual abuse deserve all the help they need to recover from their terrible experiences, but I don't see where this has anything to do with piping a political slogan (that has nothing to do with paedophilia) on a cake.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

The points being made are what if a paedophile wants a cake made to support lowering the age of consent. I gave the age of 12 as that is the lowest legal age of consent recognised in the world. Do we here in the UK feel comfortable promoting that cause? As it is asking for support to make something legal here that is legal elsewhere, is the paedophile in the wrong? Can a bakery refuse or would they be discriminating against them? The waters are very muddy, it's easy to say don't be discriminatory, but both sides have a right to be heard. The customer has the right not to be abused, the bakery has the right to refuse custom. The bakery was run by adults who didn't consent to promoting gay marriage. Human rights laws are being made meaningless by cases like this, when homosexuals in other parts of the world are being put to death. People have a right to life, a right not to not be tortured, a right to a private family life. Not sure when it became ensconced in law that they had a right to have a cake decorated. Get real! However, I love the idea of the disclaimer, why did no-one else think of that?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Then why not be christian and overlook being homosexual. They are not asking them to join in with their homosexuality, only for a cake.


AND AGAIN..... The bakery had NO problem with their sexuality!!!! The bakery were happy to make a cake with any OTHER decoration upon it. The ONLY THING the bakery had an issue with was the wording on the cake. NOTHING ELSE!!!

Goodness - talk about not being able to see the plain facts!!!!! But then, folks wouldn't have been able to make such a drama out of the plain facts would they!! 



> They clearly do not follow Leviiticus anyway, the man has a clean shaved face and short hair. Very hypocritical of them to follow one statement in it but not the others.


Leviticus is the third book in the OLD testament which is not followed as closely by Christians (the clue is in the name BTW) as they do the new testament as that relates directly to the time of Christ and his teachings.

The Jewish faith is based more in the teachings of the old testament.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> AND AGAIN..... The bakery had NO problem with their sexuality!!!! The bakery were happy to make a cake with any OTHER decoration upon it. The ONLY THING the bakery had an issue with was the wording on the cake. NOTHING ELSE!!!
> 
> Goodness - talk about not being able to see the plain facts!!!!! But then, folks wouldn't have been able to make such a drama out of the plain facts would they!!
> 
> ...


Please do not provide me with an eyeroll, I am perfectly able to see the plain truth and facts of the case thank you very much.
I see it without the prejudice of a book behind me too, so most likely see it very clearly.

It does have to do with their sexuality and the COURT ruled so, so it's not my opinion, it is legal fact now.

Yes, it may be not used by christians, however that is the very part of the bible they will recite when saying how wrong homosexuality is, so if you follow it there, then follow the rest of it.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> The points being made are what if a paedophile wants a cake made to support lowering the age of consent. I gave the age of 12 as that is the lowest legal age of consent recognised in the world. Do we here in the UK feel comfortable promoting that cause? As it is asking for support to make something legal here that is legal elsewhere, is the paedophile in the wrong? Can a bakery refuse or would they be discriminating against them? The waters are very muddy, it's easy to say don't be discriminatory, but both sides have a right to be heard. The customer has the right not to be abused, the bakery has the right to refuse custom. The bakery was run by adults who didn't consent to promoting gay marriage. Human rights laws are being made meaningless by cases like this, when homosexuals in other parts of the world are being put to death. People have a right to life, a right not to not be tortured, a right to a private family life. Not sure when it became ensconced in law that they had a right to have a cake decorated. Get real! However, I love the idea of the disclaimer, why did no-one else think of that?


The issue as far as I understand it, is not that they refused to decorate a cake, but that they refused based on what they believe the bible says. By bringing the bible in to it they make it a religious discrimination issue as they are discriminating against someone for not following the bible as they think it should be followed.

They're not asking for the right to have a cake decorated, they're asking not to be discriminated against because they don't follow Christianity as others think it should be followed.

To bring back the dog training example. I can refuse a client based on their use of a shock collar. I can't however refuse a client based on the religion they practice (or that they don't practice a religion). That is, according to how the laws are written as of now. Whether or not those laws are still necessary or applicable is a whole 'nother conversation.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I quite like the eyeroll smiley......


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ To bring back the dog training example. I can refuse a client based on their use of a shock collar. I can't however refuse a client based on the religion they practice (or that they don't practice a religion)._
Absolutely - because using a shock collar is not a protected characteristic and religion is. The wording on the cake is the nub of it because it's the word gay which caused the issue. They'd be happy to do a cake saying support marriage, making the huge assumption it was in support of heterosexual union.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they didn't refuse them because they were gay, they refused because they requested a gay message on the cake which completely goes against their own beliefs. Had the bakery been asked to decorate the cake with cute cats or flowery stuff, there wouldn't have been a problem. It's all about being allowed to hold onto your principles. If I - for example - ran a bakery and someone ordered a cake that said "Badger Killers Rule" I'd be telling them no can do. Do you think I would be taken to court for that? Probably not. But the principle remains the same.
> 
> True equality cannot ever exist because someone always has to compromise. These days it seems to be those who have strong Christian beliefs doing most of it.


Exactly this. All I see is people in an outrage about the bakery refusing to bake this cake, but respect for one's beliefs and values work both ways. The bakery have religious reasons as to why they feel it's wrong, those feelings and beliefs should be equally respected.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Exactly this. All I see is people in an outrage about the bakery refusing to bake this cake, but respect for one's beliefs and values work both ways. The bakery have religious reasons as to why they feel it's wrong, those feelings and beliefs should be equally respected.


The argument is not that they cannot have those beliefs, it's using those beliefs as a basis for discrimination that's the issue.


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> The points being made are what if a paedophile wants a cake made to support
> lowering the age of consent. I gave the age of 12 as that is the lowest legal age of consent recognised in the world. Do we here in the UK feel comfortable promoting that cause?


because in the most simple terms being a paedophile is not a protected characteristic:

a protected characteristic is:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
Also, backing gay marriage is not promoting a criminal activity - the UK already states that the age of consent is 16 and anything below that is statutory rape, a CRIMINAL offence. Gay marriage is NOT a criminal offence, it is legislative impossibility

Furthermore, for people stating that the shop did not discriminate against them being gay, but merely against gay marriage, you have to ask, if a Christian had gone into the shop and asked for a cake that stated:_ 'marriage - the union between a man and a woman'_ do you think they would have been refused. Honestly... 

unless you can honestly be sure that they would have been refused, then refusing the gay marriage cake is discrimination. Because that's how discrimination works; anything that would have been permitted for one group and NOT for another is discrimination in it's most pure and simple state


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

If any of you are on fb, have a gander at Nathan Anderson for Castlereagh South and his post about the 'gay cake' as it is referred to here in NI. 
Bear in mind, he is a member of the largest political party in NI. 
Also look at the replies he has recieved, not many support his views at all. 
Personally I cannot make my mind up about the case at all. I wholeheartedly agree in equal rights but I cannot understand why the person who ordered the cake did so from a very well known and established bakery who's name 'Asher' is taken from the bible and have promoted that fact so therefore their 'anti gay' stance would have been suspected from the get go.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_The bakery have religious reasons as to why they feel it's wrong_
No, the bakery doesn't at all, individuals in the bakery do and that's the difference on which the ruling was based. At no time has this business advertised itself as a faith based entity. If it had the ruling may have been different.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Ah yes... the "where will it all end" argument. The "if we tolerate homosexuality, who's to say it won't turn in to pedophilia and bestiality" argument.
> *sigh* :Meh
> 
> Okay. Homosexuality is a mutually consensual relationship with an adult of the same gender. The key words here are consent and adults.
> There is NO connection nor reason to make a connection between homosexuality and children or animals. No adult, no consent, no relationship. It's really that simple.


Oh FFS listen to yourself.

If you stop ranting and wailing for long enough to to engage your brain and actually read my post you will see that I was merely asking Erenya her opinion as to how far the legal protection against discrimination against protected characteristics would go in the case of sexual orientation. Simple as that. Purely technical question actually.

Everything else you inferred from my post is just the product of your fevered imagination.

Just for the record, before some other numpty deliberately misconstrues my post....

I have NOT equated homosexuality with either peadophilia or bestiality. Nor has anyone else on this thread btw.
I AM strongly in favour of gay marriage.
I AM NOT in favour of sex with 2 years olds or with sheep or even with 2 year old sheep.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Satori said:


> Oh FFS listen to yourself.
> 
> If you stop ranting and wailing for long enough to to engage your brain and actually read my post you will see that I was merely asking Erenya her opinion as to how far the legal protection against discrimination against protected characteristics would go in the case of sexual orientation. Simple as that. Purely technical question actually.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that I misunderstood the meaning of your post? Got it


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

Satori said:


> I AM strongly in favour of gay marriage.
> I AM NOT in favour of sex with 2 years olds or with sheep or even with 2 year old sheep.


best quote of the argument so far


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Mrsred said:


> If any of you are on fb, have a gander at Nathan Anderson for Castlereagh South and his post about the 'gay cake' as it is referred to here in NI.
> Bear in mind, he is a member of the largest political party in NI.
> Also look at the replies he has recieved, not many support his views at all.
> Personally I cannot make my mind up about the case at all. I wholeheartedly agree in equal rights but I cannot understand why the person who ordered the cake did so from a very well known and established bakery who's name 'Asher' is taken from the bible and have promoted that fact so therefore their 'anti gay' stance would have been suspected from the get go.


Re the name, I personally wouldn't have a clue it's a christian bakery based on that (which it isn't anyway).

Asher's, I would presume is a last name and that doesn't mean anything. My surname originates from the bible too and I am an atheist, if I were to open a shop I may use my surname as the name of the shop, yet I am not a christian.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Protected characteristics include sexual orientation. So it's reasonable to ask the question: "would a paedophile be able to request a cake with a message supporting lowering the age of consent to 12?" A request for support to bring in legislation to lower the age of consent is not in itself illegal. No -one is saying gays are paedophiles, or sheep botherers, but are suggesting that a paedophile might have the right to the same service (ordering a cake) as any other person, which would be a very interesting legal point to test. 

As for holding beliefs, but giving vague excuses (we're busy, not so good at fondant as the bakers down the road etc) as to why you can't carry out an order, that's why nobody wants to admit to being a Christian anymore. In the old days people would be burnt alive still proclaiming their faith, now they are expected to mumble feebly and deny it. If you have no faith, hold your head up high and say so. If you have faith, hold your head up high and say so. If you have doubts, admit those too, and hope for enlightenment of some sort. To have faith and deny it would be soul destroying (some would believe in the literal sense).


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Protected characteristics include sexual orientation. So it's reasonable to ask the question: "would a paedophile be able to request a cake with a message supporting lowering the age of consent to 12?"_
Paedophilia does not fall into the definition of sexual orientation. I'm a bit shocked that anyone would think it does.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

So gay activists proved to be quite intolerant of intolerant Christians...
The irony of it.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Satori said:


> Just for the record, before some other numpty deliberately misconstrues my post....
> 
> I have NOT equated homosexuality with either peadophilia or bestiality. Nor has anyone else on this thread btw.
> I AM strongly in favour of gay marriage.
> ...


Not your's but I think some posts *have* definitely walked the line of equating homosexuality with illegal sexual perversions, simply by asking if it would be okay to demand a cake with a pro message about them, since it's okay to ask for a gay marriage one. It might not be intentional but if you (general you) are basically saying if we can have a Yay for Gay Marriage cake why can't we have a Thumbs Up for Bestiality one, you (again, general you) are drawing a parallel between the two. Or that's how it reads to me.

I'm all for freedom of expression but I agree with rona's post a few pages back that true freedom for all isn't attainable because your's often comes at the price of someone else's.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Protected characteristics include sexual orientation. So it's reasonable to ask the question: "would a paedophile be able to request a cake with a message supporting lowering the age of consent to 12?" A request for support to bring in legislation to lower the age of consent is not in itself illegal.


Yes, a pedophile can request a cake with such a message, and the bakery can refuse. 
AFAIK the law does not recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation so there would be no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> Re the name, I personally wouldn't have a clue it's a christian bakery based on that (which it isn't anyway).
> 
> Asher's, I would presume is a last name and that doesn't mean anything. My surname originates from the bible too and I am an atheist, if I were to open a shop I may use my surname as the name of the shop, yet I am not a christian.


That's fair enough but a great many people in NI are evangelical Christian or at least have been brought up that way (the evangelical Protestant churches refer to the Old Testament A LOT here, Church of Ireland, Catholics not so much) and it was a widely held view when this story broke of 'why did they go there?' So people in NI kinda knew it was a Christian run establishment.

By rights, the cake should have been made but this is NI, hardly the most 'let's hold hands together' society. It raised questions would you have gone into a republican area and asked for a Union Jack with a picture of the queen on a cake or gone to a loyalist area and asked for a tricolour with 'our day will come' emblazoned on it and THAT is the mindset you are up against.

Ashers should have made up some silly excuse not to make the cake if it really bothered them so much (and don't think that all this will have done their business a pick of harm, there are plenty who agree with them) but conversely, whilst I think it's wrong that the cake wasn't made, I can't decide whether I agree with the whole legal shebang that went with it. Go to the press, boycott the shop certainly but from my perspective, all it has done is make the right wing more indignant and dig their heels in.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Mrsred said:


> If any of you are on fb, have a gander at Nathan Anderson for Castlereagh South and his post about the 'gay cake' as it is referred to here in NI.
> Bear in mind, he is a member of the largest political party in NI.
> Also look at the replies he has recieved, not many support his views at all.
> Personally I cannot make my mind up about the case at all. I wholeheartedly agree in equal rights but* I cannot understand why the person who ordered the cake did so from a very well known and established bakery who's name 'Asher' is taken from the bible and have promoted that fact so therefore their 'anti gay' stance would have been suspected from the get go*.


The customer is a gay-rights activist. This was purely a PR stunt!!!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

By elevating icing on a cake to a major issue, gay rights activists won battle but lost the war



> Grandiose claims have been made likening our cake kerfuffle to the campaign for civil rights in the US. Such comparisons are ridiculous beyond belief.
> 
> In 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, a black woman called Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. It was a defiant act of resistance in the struggle against discrimination.





> In 2014, Gareth Lee went into a small Belfast bakery and asked them to ice a cake with Ernie and Bert from Sesame Street and a political slogan. *The two incidents should not be mentioned in the same breath. This was never our Rosa Parks moment.*
> 
> There are many matters for gay rights activists in Northern Ireland to be incensed about. This was never one of them. It certainly did not scream "glaring injustice" to the ordinary man or woman.





> *By elevating the icing of a cake into a major issue, I believe gay rights activists have trivialised and damaged their own campaign.*


Source: Belfast Telegraph


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

havoc said:


> Paedophilia does not fall into the definition of sexual orientation. I'm a bit shocked that anyone would think it does.


True, and may it ever stay that way. However, given that homosexuality was considered an 'illegal sexual perversion' (as Mulish put it) in the UK until relatively recently, and that child rape is not considered a bad thing to do by significant proportions of the population in some areas of the globe (not to mention some historic cultures), then it may be more technically accurate to state that "paedophilia is not included in the current UK definition of socially and legally acceptable sexual orientations/preferences."

This is, of course, purely a pedantic thought exercise and I too of course hope that paedophilia will eventually be stamped out, but IF a debate along the lines of "if homosexuals are genuinely born that way then should we consider if this is also the case for other sexual preferences still considered 'perversions' and if it is therefore unfair to discriminate against them too" ever arises, it's going to raise a whole shedload of messy. And heaven help us if he debate is a serious one!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Mrsred said:


> Ashers should have made up some silly excuse not to make the cake if it really bothered them so much (and don't think that all this will have done their business a pick of harm, there are plenty who agree with them) but conversely, whilst I think it's wrong that the cake wasn't made, I can't decide whether I agree with the whole legal shebang that went with it. Go to the press, boycott the shop certainly but from my perspective, all it has done is make the right wing more indignant and dig their heels in.


Couldn't agree more. All this has achieved is yet more division which won't progress anyone's cause.


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

Mrsred said:


> That's fair enough but a great many people in NI are evangelical Christian or at least have been brought up that way (the evangelical Protestant churches refer to the Old Testament A LOT here, Church of Ireland, Catholics not so much) and it was a widely held view when this story broke of 'why did they go there?' So people in NI kinda knew it was a Christian run establishment.
> 
> By rights, the cake should have been made but this is NI, hardly the most 'let's hold hands together' society. It raised questions would you have gone into a republican area and asked for a Union Jack with a picture of the queen on a cake or gone to a loyalist area and asked for a tricolour with 'our day will come' emblazoned on it and THAT is the mindset you are up against.
> 
> Ashers should have made up some silly excuse not to make the cake if it really bothered them so much (and don't think that all this will have done their business a pick of harm, there are plenty who agree with them) but conversely, whilst I think it's wrong that the cake wasn't made, I can't decide whether I agree with the whole legal shebang that went with it. Go to the press, boycott the shop certainly but from my perspective, all it has done is make the right wing more indignant and dig their heels in.


Can I just commend you on an incredibly well reasoned post that gives useful insight into the wider scenario!!


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> This is, of course, purely a pedantic thought exercise and I too of course hope that paedophilia will eventually be stamped out, but IF a debate along the lines of "if homosexuals are genuinely born that way then should we consider if this is also the case for other sexual preferences still considered 'perversions' and if it is therefore unfair to discriminate against them too" ever arises, it's going to raise a whole shedload of messy. And heaven help us if he debate is a serious one!


I think a better question would be based on protecting vulnerable parties. In a consentual homosexual relationship between adults there are no vulnerable parties who need protecting. In a relationship between an adult and a child there is clearly a more vulnerable party who needs protecting.

Whether homosexuality is innate or a choice is muddy waters indeed, and IMO not relevant. As long as no one is getting hurt, it shouldn't matter really. Sex itself is a choice. Again, as long as no one is being hurt or no one is without a voice, how or even if that sex happens is really no one's business.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

Mulish said:


> Couldn't agree more. All this has achieved is yet more division which won't progress anyone's cause.


I'm torn on this one though...

On the one hand I think meh, it's a cake, go to a baker who doesn't care about the message and call it a day, it's not that big of a deal is it?
On the other hand though, all social chance comes about because someone decided to rock the boat and make a point. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. You could argue she was being silly too. Who cares if you sit in front or in the back right? But with the clarity of a few decades we see it far differently.

I wonder in years to come how these sorts of discussions will be viewed by our future generations.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm torn on this one though...
> 
> On the one hand I think meh, it's a cake, go to a baker who doesn't care about the message and call it a day, it's not that big of a deal is it?
> On the other hand though, all social chance comes about because someone decided to rock the boat and make a point. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. You could argue she was being silly too. Who cares if you sit in front or in the back right? But with the clarity of a few decades we see it far differently.
> ...


Rosa Parks faced violence and did not have the backing of any form of race relations act at that time.

The cake buyers have the law on their side regarding discrimination (and didn't they make sure everyone knew they did) and all they faced was not getting the icing on their cake.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Jesthar said:


> True, and may it ever stay that way. However, given that homosexuality was considered an 'illegal sexual perversion' (as Mulish put it) in the UK until relatively recently, and that child rape is not considered a bad thing to do by significant proportions of the population in some areas of the globe (not to mention some historic cultures), then it may be more technically accurate to state that "paedophilia is not included in the current UK definition of socially and legally acceptable sexual orientations/preferences."
> 
> This is, of course, purely a pedantic thought exercise and I too of course hope that paedophilia will eventually be stamped out, but IF a debate along the lines of "if homosexuals are genuinely born that way then should we consider if this is also the case for other sexual preferences still considered 'perversions' and if it is therefore unfair to discriminate against them too" ever arises, it's going to raise a whole shedload of messy. And heaven help us if he debate is a serious one!


This is an interesting point and one we sort of half alluded to in another thread a few weeks ago because paedophiles can't help the way they feel, only the way they act. The way I look at it though, there are a lot of - I can't think quite how to put it, brain malfunctions, maybe? Predilections someone is born with but which are morally wrong. I'd put paedophilia alongside kleptomania and pyromania, as a mental disorder rather than a sexual preference.* So I guess I would continue to argue that child rape is definitely wrong, however many countries allow it. Just like stoning people to death is wrong, or not letting women drive or girls go to school are wrong. Letting consenting adults get married if they want to is nowhere near wrong. Nobody is harmed by gay marriage, they are by paedophiles or pyromaniacs being allowed to follow their urges.

*Yeah, I know homosexuality has been classed this way and attempts have been (and in some places continue to be) made to 'cure' it.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm playing devils advocate here but Rosa Parks COULD NOT sit on a seat on ANY bus where a white person to alight, the cake could have been made anywhere. 

Least people should think NI is completely homophobic, we do have gay pride and civil partnerships, it's not completely the 1950's. 

However, the closest I can describe some people and many politicians who side with Ashers on a religious reason to you Ouesi as a few steps down from tele evangelists. They will not change their views, they will use this as an example of Christian persecution and will then preach their message down to the children in their congregations so it will go on and on.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

ouesi said:


> *I think a better question would be based on protecting vulnerable parties.* In a consentual homosexual relationship between adults there are no vulnerable parties who need protecting. In a relationship between an adult and a child there is clearly a more vulnerable party who needs protecting.
> 
> Whether homosexuality is innate or a choice is muddy waters indeed, and IMO not relevant. As long as no one is getting hurt, it shouldn't matter really. Sex itself is a choice. Again, as long as no one is being hurt or no one is without a voice, how or even if that sex happens is really no one's business.


Hey, I don't disagree.  I can just see some elements of society thinking about trying the argument out for size at some point. Doubt they'd get anywhere with the public opinion, which should keep the tin lid on it as a legal challenge would get nowhere without popular support, and as you say vulnerability comes in to it where children are concerned.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

silvi said:


> Rosa Parks faced violence and did not have the backing of any form of race relations act at that time.
> 
> The cake buyers have the law on their side regarding discrimination (and didn't they make sure everyone knew they did) and all they faced was not getting the icing on their cake.


That's why I say I'm torn. 
The law does not back gay marriage right? So that's a battle that's still being fought. 
And homosexuals still face violence.

IDK, it's a tough one for me. I'm just in a hurry to get to the point where this becomes a non-conversation because homosexuality is fully accepted.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Can a cake be gay?.....


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

I think this one might be:
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/i-am-gay-cake-round-1.jpg


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> It's not one of the big issues in the bible, it's barely mentioned and it may have been interpreted as being wrong, but then the bible says all number of things are wrong that people (christians) do.
> 
> I know a lot of Christians, I know none who never braid their hair because it says so in the bible, none who do not mix fabric on their jackets.
> 
> Nobody follows the book, they truly don't, because it also says sinners should be burnt and hopefully nobody is doing that.


No offence, but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The braiding of hair etc is not a big deal for very Christian people. Being gay is. Like I said, it's one of the biggies for very devout Christians. As much as the blokes had the right to ask for the wording, so did the baker to refuse based on his beliefs. As someone already mentioned, a cartoon of a certain prophet has caused untold issues and people take that pretty seriously. Why aren't the feelings of the Christians taken into account? Is it that the gay people annoyed are more important than the Christian feelings? Bit unequal.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> No offence, but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The braiding of hair etc is not a big deal for very Christian people. Being gay is. Like I said, it's one of the biggies for very devout Christians. As much as the blokes had the right to ask for the wording, so did the baker to refuse based on his beliefs. As someone already mentioned, a cartoon of a certain prophet has caused untold issues and people take that pretty seriously. Why aren't the feelings of the Christians taken into account? Is it that the gay people annoyed are more important than the Christian feelings? Bit unequal.


No offence taken.
In a way I am, I was highlighting the fact that the bible is obtuse and people will select what they wish from it.
Why is the braiding of hair not counted as being a big deal? If they wish to make a big deal out of being gay by something said in Liviticus then surely they should also live by the other standards set surely? 
They don't because they don't wish to, they could also chose to be the same about homosexuals, yet they don't. If those ones are left out of the following because they seem pointless and obtuse and lets face it, they want to eat meat with fat on, wear their hair how they wish and wear what they want. In modern society it makes no sense to follow Liviticus so christian's do not. Hopefully one day the same application will be put on the gay lines as the lines about hair and beards and eating fat, I see no reason why the rest are abandoned and that held up.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Obtuse, again. Because it's a big deal and for some (not me, I hasten to add, couldn't care less what anyone else does, frankly) it goes against the tradition of the so-called 'normal' family, two genders, making babies etc. It's been male plus female then babies for as long as forever. Some people won't easily overcome their upbringing which was, at least for anyone over 40, 'traditional', possibly Christian, a mum and a dad. And for the 3rd time, as you appear to be asking, being gay is against Christian beliefs, much as it is frowned upon by many other religions. Regardless of how minor it may seem to be in the Bible, it's one of the big cornerstone philosophies of many religions. Just because you see it as minor, does not mean that others do.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> Obtuse, again. Because it's a big deal and for some (not me, I hasten to add, couldn't care less what anyone else does, frankly) it goes against the tradition of the so-called 'normal' family, two genders, making babies etc. It's been male plus female then babies for as long as forever. Some people won't easily overcome their upbringing which was, at least for anyone over 40, 'traditional', possibly Christian, a mum and a dad. And for the 3rd time, as you appear to be asking, being gay is against Christian beliefs, much as it is frowned upon by many other religions. Regardless of how minor it may seem to be in the Bible, it's one of the big cornerstone philosophies of many religions. Just because you see it as minor, does not mean that others do.


CT are you saying that Christianity and tolerance of homosexuality are mutually exclusive and always will be?
I'm not so sure... Many denominations of Christianity have now accepted homosexuality and perform gay marriages. They're okay with it. Granted, there are just as many (arguably more - I just don't have actual figures) who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality, and some on the fence who welcome homosexuals in to their fold but make sure that they know their "lifestyle" is a sin. This is in the US mind, in NI I imagine things are just a tad different


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

No, I'm flipping not  I'm all for a good debate, but I swear there's an obtuse gene flying round today! Saying that, don't get me started on the NI aspect. Yes, they're far more Christian than perhaps the rest of the UK, far less wiling to tolerate certain things, perhaps. I mean, gay marriage is still not allowed there, this being the whole point. Even France has legalised it, ffs.  

I'm generally in a mood re NI this week. I'm horrified that Prince Chalres shook Gerry Adams' hand, yeah, I know, diplomacy, we need to move on, blah, but I can't forget images from 1982 and multiple other occasions.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> No, I'm flipping not  I'm all for a good debate, but I swear there's an obtuse gene flying round today!


Well that's why I asked, because to me it wasn't clear from your posts. Give me a break, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here!
I don't know who Gerry Adams is, and I guess I don't want to.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Mulish said:


> All this has achieved is yet more division which won't progress anyone's cause.


I don't agree.

Maybe the bakery was chosen. But no, not as a 'publicity stunt' (the word stunt trivialises the message) but because the 'activist' felt there was a point to be made.

Equality never comes without a struggle. And the struggle for gay 'rights' is no exception. And it's relatively new in this country (UK). (And has yet to reach many other areas of the world).

We can sit back behind our keyboards and mutter why on earth didn't they go to Sainsburys for the cake . But I remember the days when gays were turned out of pubs for holding hands (go somewhere else was the words used then) or refused a room in a hotel (it's disgusting). I remember queer bashing in London. It was a sport to make the gays go somewhere else.

My wife (well, wife to be back then) and I walked the Brighton Pride parade one year (I love that weekend!) with our very gay friends and I still remember to this day rounding the corner to be met by a (cordoned off) group of Christian 'activists' quoting the bible and admonishing us for our sins. They wanted us to go somewhere else too. I had never been faced with such vitriol ....well, I wouldn't have I'm not gay.

So maybe the cake issue does seem (to us) a little silly. But not to everyone.

J


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Maybe the bakery was chosen. But no, not as a 'publicity stunt' (the word stunt trivialises the message)


Absolutely.

It was the Northern Ireland Equalities Commission who got this case into court.
It was done, not as a stunt or to persecute an individual but as a test case to try to establish whether a person can use their own personal beliefs as a reason to discriminate.

If they can this will create a loop hole that any business will be able to exploit and so will render laws preventing discrimination useless and leave many people (not only gay people) open to discrimination in important areas such as housing, education and employment.

There have been many of these cases in America and judges there have tended to come to the same conclusion. I gather this was the first test case of its kind in the UK.

This company and the Christian Institute who supported them would have been fully aware of all of this and of the significance of this case and its outcome.

All parties involved knew _exactly_ what they were getting into and what was at stake.

This was not a trivial case.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> True, and may it ever stay that way. However, given that homosexuality was considered an 'illegal sexual perversion' (as Mulish put it) in the UK until relatively recently, and that child rape is not considered a bad thing to do by significant proportions of the population in some areas of the globe (not to mention some historic cultures), then it may be more technically accurate to state that "paedophilia is not included in the current UK definition of socially and legally acceptable sexual orientations/preferences."
> 
> This is, of course, purely a pedantic thought exercise and I too of course hope that paedophilia will eventually be stamped out, but IF a debate along the lines of "if homosexuals are genuinely born that way then should we consider if this is also the case for other sexual preferences still considered 'perversions' and if it is therefore unfair to discriminate against them too" ever arises, it's going to raise a whole shedload of messy. And heaven help us if he debate is a serious one!


Exactly the point I've been trying to make. My example of a paedophile asking for "Lower the Age of Consent to 12" was given because that age is considered legal in some parts of the world. And if men fancying men or women fancying women is a sexual orientation, then surely so must adults fancying those underage. I'm going to get in trouble here, and let me make it very plain I DO NOT agree with paedophilia, but there could be an argument that it is actually MORE natural (on a purely animal instinct basis) to be a paedophile than a homosexual, because if you get to a young female before any other male has had a chance to mate with her you have a chance of siring her offspring (assuming she carries the pregnancy, doesn't die in labour, knows how to look after her offspring, etc). The preference for mating with one of your own sex produces no offspring, so has no evolutionary advantage for that trait to be passed on. This is simply a scientific argument, treating the human animal like another animal. Please don't howl me down because the argument makes you uncomfortable, but think about it in a scientific way. Why do we neuter our female kittens before letting them outside? Because they can get mated and conceive at 4 months old. Does that make the tom cat a paedophile cat, or doing what comes naturally to sire as many litters as possible? Of course humans are not "just" animals, we have a society, (though we are not unique in that), morals, religions, a consciousness of others around us and an awareness of the future, but we have the animal instinct too, and it must be considered along with other factors. In previous threads on similar subjects, the argument has been put forward that homosexuality is an entirely natural thing because it occurs in nature, so perhaps paedophilia should be considered in the same way? Now people are starting to get uncomfortable aren't they? Asking for the slogan "lower the age of consent" - how is that illegal under the current set of rules protecting sexual orientation and right to not be discriminated against? The "customer" is not performing an illegal act, or promoting an illegal act, but asking for legislation to be changed so that his or her preferences would not be illegal if they were to be acted upon in the future. And yet most people reading this ( and my self as I type this) are revolted by paedophilia and want it "stamped out" as it is put above. So exactly how do you word legislation to protect the rights of all, without letting in something nasty by the back door? Who is to say what is nasty, 12 is legal in Angola, should it be legal here? Or are Angolans paedophiles? Or does that make us racists for thinking so? As you say, Jesthar, it could get a whole shed load of messy. The only way I can see forward is to have legislation to protect the real rights of all (Life, health, home, privacy etc), and have peer pressure come into effect for the less important stuff (like cake decorating for goodness sake). So if a baker turns you away you go to another. If every baker in the country gives you the same answer, maybe you and a group of like minded people set up your own and make the best damn cakes around, which everybody wants. You simply can't cry foul for hurt feelings, when others have hurt and broken bodies, it turns away the very support and acceptance you want. If you want acceptance from society, you become a valued part of that society. If these people go back to Ashers and order another cake they will probably have it made for them, but without the smile on the pavement or the friendly toot of a passing car, what will it mean, will life be worth living in that area?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> This is simply a scientific argument, treating the human animal like another animal. Please don't howl me down because the argument makes you uncomfortable, but think about it in a scientific way.


Then in that case your argument falls flat because many 12 year olds have not started menstruating so are not going to get pregnant and carry offspring at all. And still speaking scientifically, girls who have just started menstruating aren't necessarily fertile or good candidates to carry and birth a child as their bodies are simply to immature to do so. Pregnancy and childbirth in humans is not quite as easy as it is in cats. Scientifically speaking 



Catharinem said:


> So exactly how do you word legislation to protect the rights of all, without letting in something nasty by the back door? Who is to say what is nasty, 12 is legal in Angola, should it be legal here? Or are Angolans paedophiles? Or does that make us racists for thinking so?


Wow, you have a lot of things going on here.
Okay, first, start with consent. If we're going to get scientific again, let's look at the brain development of a normal human 12 year old, and we can clearly see a 12 year old does not have the capability to consent. And even if a 12 year old did have the capability to consent, that doesn't mean they would, so you still have the issue of being pressured/forced in to sex, something ALL people of all ages and preferences should be protected against. 
Racism has nothing to do with anything here. Racism is discrimination based on race. Besides, Angolans are not the only peoples of the world who have a low age of consent.

To me it is not difficult. A civilized society protects it's vulnerable members. Allowing gay marriage between two consenting adults has nothing to do with protection of the vulnerable.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ And if men fancying men or women fancying women is a sexual orientation, then surely so must adults fancying those underage._
Sexual orientation is only a protected characteristic when applied to individuals acting within the law. In much the same way restrictions would apply if there was a recognised religion which wanted to practice human sacrifice. Religion is also a protected characteristic but it doesn't give carte blanche to disregard the law.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Then in that case your argument falls flat because many 12 year olds have not started menstruating so are not going to get pregnant and carry offspring at all. And still speaking scientifically, girls who have just started menstruating aren't necessarily fertile or good candidates to carry and birth a child as their bodies are simply to immature to do so. Pregnancy and childbirth in humans is not quite as easy as it is in cats. Scientifically speaking


Not all 12 year olds will carry a pregnancy, true. And not all 4 month old queens will get pregnant either. But there are an awful lot of teenage mums here in UK which became pregnant before the legal age of consent, which gave birth naturally. And a lot of mums (myself included) who became pregnant in their early thirties and had caesarians.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _ And if men fancying men or women fancying women is a sexual orientation, then surely so must adults fancying those underage._
> Sexual orientation is only a protected characteristic when applied to individuals acting within the law. In much the same way restrictions would apply if there was a recognised religion which wanted to practice human sacrifice. Religion is also a protected characteristic but it doesn't give carte blanche to disregard the law.


 Is it acting within the law to request a change to legislation, like for example lowering the age of consent?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Not all 12 year olds will carry a pregnancy, true. And not all 4 month old queens will get pregnant either. But there are an awful lot of teenage mums here in UK which became pregnant before the legal age of consent, which gave birth naturally. And a lot of mums (myself included) who became pregnant in their early thirties and had caesarians.


I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. And I'm not really sure it's even on topic to the current discussion?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Is it acting within the law to request a change to legislation, like for example lowering the age of consent?_
You could start with your MP and see if they'd be prepared to try for a private members bill. Don't fancy your chances much.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Wow, you have a lot of things going on here.
> Okay, first, start with consent. If we're going to get scientific again, let's look at the brain development of a normal human 12 year old, and we can clearly see a 12 year old does not have the capability to consent. And even if a 12 year old did have the capability to consent, that doesn't mean they would, so you still have the issue of being pressured/forced in to sex, something ALL people of all ages and preferences should be protected against.
> Racism has nothing to do with anything here. Racism is discrimination based on race. Besides, Angolans are not the only peoples of the world who have a low age of consent.
> .


 I use the Angolan example as they have the lowest age of consent at 12, read my previous posts to see why using that example. The current age of consent in the uk has been lowered from those in the past. So the message "lower age of consent to 12" should be refused not because it asks for the age to be lowered, which it has in the past, but because at age 12 the normal human brain is not developed enough?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Is it acting within the law to request a change to legislation, like for example lowering the age of consent?


Yes. That doesn't mean the law will be changed?

Are you trying to equate this to the cake decoration? 
It is not illegal to ask for a cake to be decorated saying "support marriage equality". It is not illegal to ask for a cake to be decorated with "bring back animal sacrifice" or "celebrate pedophilia". It IS illegal to say you will not decorate a cake because it goes against your bible teachings because that becomes discrimination based on religion. 
All the bakery had to say was "we don't make that kind of cake here" and it would not have been illegal discrimination. In the same way all a dog trainer has to say is "we don't do that kind of training here" or a hairdresser can say "we don't do that kind of haircut here". Then it is not discrimination.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Homosexuality is not sustainable, it cannot create offspring, the only way for gay couples to have children is by either breaking their own sexual code (rendering the whole point of it obsolete) or by "buying" one from someone prepared to create a life by means they wouldnt consider...

chew that one over


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> So the message "lower age of consent to 12" should be refused not because it asks for the age to be lowered, which it has in the past, but because at age 12 the normal human brain is not developed enough?


The message doesn't have to be refused at all if the bakery doesn't care what the cake says. It's a cake, not legislature. 
Legislature will refuse (I would hope) for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that a 12 year old shouldn't be having sex for physical and psychological reasons.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. And I'm not really sure it's even on topic to the current discussion?


What don't you understand? You said my argument fell flat because many girls aren't fertile and able to carry a pregnancy at 12, not as easy as in cats, my reply was that quite a few girls can carry a pregnancy at that age, and quite a few teenage cats can't. Actually, you're very assumption that pregnancy in cats is easier than in humans is wrong, read one of the very many posts on problems with maiden queens. But yes, we're getting off subject. I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD lower the age of consent, but asking on what grounds could someone refuse to write that message if a customer were to request it? It is not illegal to make a request to change legislation as far as I am aware, and the age of consent has been lowered in the past, so on what (legal, not moral) grounds could it be refused? I'm simply highlighting the muddy waters of trying to legislate for all. I don't care if a gay couple want a cake or not as long as no-one has to be taken to court to get it made for them.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Colliebarmy said:


> Homosexuality is not sustainable, it cannot create offspring, the only way for gay couples to have children is by either breaking their own sexual code (rendering the whole point of it obsolete) or by "buying" one from someone prepared to create a life by means they wouldnt consider...
> 
> chew that one over


Oh well in that case definitely make marriage between infertile couples illegal as well. And couples who don't want children... And if any menopausal woman wants to marry that should be illegal too. 
enguin


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> The message doesn't have to be refused at all if the bakery doesn't care what the cake says. It's a cake, not legislature.
> Legislature will refuse (I would hope) for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that a 12 year old shouldn't be having sex for physical and psychological reasons.


And now we start to see the problem... what if the bakery DOES care what the cake says? The customer is not requesting support in child rape (which would be illegal), but support in changing legislation (which is not illegal but the bakery hypothetically does not want to do). And now we come full circle to the bakery refusing support for gay marriage (which is not illegal but which they don't want to support). Phew, we got there in the end!


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> but asking on what grounds could someone refuse to write that message if a customer were to request it? It is not illegal to make a request to change legislation as far as I am aware, and the age of consent has been lowered in the past, so on what (legal, not moral) grounds could it be refused?


I think we're cross posting. I've answered that. Multiple times on this thread. A message written in a cake decoration is not legislation. It's icing.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> And now we start to see the problem... what if the bakery DOES care what the cake says? The customer is not requesting support in child rape (which would be illegal), but support in changing legislation (which is not illegal but the bakery hypothetically does not want to do). And now we come full circle to the bakery refusing support for gay marriage (which is not illegal but which they don't want to support). Phew, we got there in the end!


The bakery can refuse ANY message on ANY cake, they just can't say it's for religious reasons because then it becomes discrimination based on religion (or lack there of) which IS illegal.

Hairdresser can say I won't cut your hair that way.
Dog trainer can say I won't train your dog that way.
Cake decorator can say I won't decorate your cake that way.

I've said this already multiple times, are you deliberately not reading it?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> The bakery can refuse ANY message on ANY cake, they just can't say it's for religious reasons because then it becomes discrimination based on religion (or lack there of) which IS illegal.
> 
> Hairdresser can say I won't cut your hair that way.
> Dog trainer can say I won't train your dog that way.
> ...


Got it! You can object to something on either personal or religious grounds, but if it's on religious grounds you must lie, thus breaking one of the 10 Commandments, unless you refused point blank with no reason, and when questioned claim your right to silence on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate you!


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

I can't believe I took part in the Election thread for as long as I did and not once did anyone mention that the Tories are now demanding that all proposed legislative changes should be presented via the medium of cake.

At last, it's a policy I can get behind!

And Catherinem, using your reasoning, the world is overpopulated by people so maybe we're evolving to produce less offspring? Scientifically that makes more sense than expecting children to be able to bear children without advanced medical care. Usually Mother Nature keeps populations in check by balancing their resources but humans will eat almost anything and live almost anywhere. Of course we've also worked out how to make babies in lots of different ways, too. Poor Mother Nature, thwarted again.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_what if the bakery DOES care what the cake says?_ 
The bakery doesn't care. It's the individuals within it who care. The bakery is not a religious organisation and it's for this reason they couldn't refuse on religious grounds. If the owners choose to turn it into a Christian bakery which will only ice cakes with Christian messages then they could refuse.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> _what if the bakery DOES care what the cake says?_
> The bakery doesn't care. It's the individuals within it who care. The bakery is not a religious organisation and it's for this reason they couldn't refuse on religious grounds. If the owners choose to turn it into a Christian bakery which will only ice cakes with Christian messages then they could refuse.


So if I refuse to put icing saying,"support Fox hunt" then It is my belief thst Fox hunt is wrong. Religion is a bunch of beliefs.

I think it is pretty idiotic to go provoking people from Bible belt or muslim or Jews just to make a point.

They do not approve of something and gay activist do not approve of their beliefs.
Why cannot anyone say they willmot do something onreligious grounds?
So muslim were allowed not to touch pork in some supermarkets..
And wear headscarves to school with school uniform..because we respect their religion.
Seems really that that hard core Christians are discriminated then

I have evangelical church friends and they take the Bible literally and seriously. Theuwould refuse many things on religious grounds.
But who I am to judge and tell.them all that stuff is silly?

Surely we respect doctors who will not carry on abortions or even who do not prescribe the pill on religious grounds?

So.if religion does not allow you put certain.image(prophet!) or certain words on the cake?
So respect it and find someone who can.
Maybe gay activists should redirect their effort where it is truly needed?
Russia?
Gay people are not Putin favourites.

And so on.
This silly cake thing just brought unnecessary antagonism and did much more harm than good.

Baa baa rainbow sheep once again..


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Colliebarmy said:


> Homosexuality is not sustainable, it cannot create offspring, the only way for gay couples to have children is by either breaking their own sexual code (rendering the whole point of it obsolete) or by "buying" one from someone prepared to create a life by means they wouldnt consider...
> 
> chew that one over


the answer requires no chewing over whatsover
Its simple
1. Most people aren't homosexual, so no threat to species continuation there
2. Having children isn't the only reason for having a relationship


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Got it! You can object to something on either personal or religious grounds, but if it's on religious grounds you must lie, thus breaking one of the 10 Commandments, unless you refused point blank with no reason, and when questioned claim your right to silence on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate you!


You can object on whatever grounds you want, you just can't force your beliefs on someone else.

I want a cake to say support gay marriage. I have that right. 
I go to a bakery and ask for said cake. 
The owners of the bakery don't have to make the cake. They too have that right.
I go to a different bakery, who either doesn't object to the message, doesn't care, needs the money more than the first bakery, or doesn't even read the message. I get my cake made and it's done.

What the owners of the bakery cannot do is say they won't make the cake because their religious teachings object to the message. Now they're imposing their religious beliefs on me.

This is of course based on my understanding and interpretation of the law.
I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, I'm not saying the law was interpreted correctly in this case, I'm just trying to explain how I understand the ruling.

Personally, I think the objection to a message on a cake, however distasteful (get it? ha ha punny), is silly. It's a friggin' cake. It's going to get cut up and eaten. It's going to get digested and shat out in to the toilet. It's not etched in stone or passed in to law, it's flour and eggs and sugar for crying out loud. Much a do about nothing if you ask me.... If writing a message celebrating a loving, committed union between two adults in sugar and cream is that upsetting to you, I think there might be bigger issues there. But that's just my personal opinion


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Homosexuality is not sustainable, it cannot create offspring, the only way for gay couples to have children is by either breaking their own sexual code (rendering the whole point of it obsolete) or by "buying" one from someone prepared to create a life by means they wouldnt consider...
> 
> chew that one over


Wow! You know you could help so many people get over their homsexuality with that well reasoned and constructed argument! Well done!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Gay people have rights to do whatever others have right to do.
Religious people have rights to do or not do according to their faith.

It is a matter of life and death like blood transfusion.

Why gay activists should provoke them?
Why create hostility when in so many countries gay people are in true danger?

If something goes against my beliefs religious or otherwise I will refuse it same as I always did. And I respect being refused something on religious grounds or any other beliefs.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> Gay people have rights to do whatever others have right to do.


But if gay marriage is illegal in NI then they don't have the same rights do they?

Which is what started this entire conversation. A cake saying gays should be able to marry just like any other couple can.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

ouesi said:


> But if gay marriage is illegal in NI then they don't have the same rights do they?
> 
> Which is what started this entire conversation. A cake saying gays should be able to marry just like any other couple can.


No..I just expressed my opinii..not NI!
Got me wrong here. But to bring NI to it by deliberate provocation and bringing down someone's small business just because they are evangelics.

Not very high moral grounds for me..
Baabaa bloody rainbow sheep...lets go have a cake fight...

By the way in few weeks our gay cousin is getting hitched..will ask them who makes the cake..

What I am trying to say: purpose do not justify the means..


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

ouesi said:


> The bakery can refuse ANY message on ANY cake, they just can't say it's for religious reasons because then it becomes discrimination based on religion (or lack there of) which IS illegal.


Please don't take this the wrong way but that isn't quite what the law says. A person cannot just use a different reason for not making the cake.

In this instance the bakers told the customer that they wouldn't produce the cake because the message on it went against their religious belief.

But lets say they'd used a different reason. Maybe they could have told the customer that they couldn't make the cake because they were too busy - they had too many orders to fill or maybe even just gave no reason at all. They could still be prosecuted for discrimination if the customer had evidence that the _real_ reason was related to sexual orientation (or any of the other protected characteristics). Of course it would then be up the courts to decide whether the bakers were telling the truth when they said they were too busy or whether the real reason they were refusing was related to the customers protected characteristic.

What you can't do is use your religious beliefs as a means of getting around the laws on discrimination. You can't discriminate and then go to court and say 'I'm exempt from this law, I can discriminate if I choose to because of my religious beliefs' - which is what this company tried to do.

Or at least, that is what the judge decided in this case.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ameliajane said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but that isn't quite what the law says. A person cannot just use a different reason for not making the cake.
> 
> In this instance the bakers told the customer that they wouldn't produce the cake because the message on it went against their religious belief.
> 
> ...


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ameliajane said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but that isn't quite what the law says. A person cannot just use a different reason for not making the cake.
> 
> In this instance the bakers told the customer that they wouldn't produce the cake because the message on it went against their religious belief.
> 
> ...


So if you can't tell the truth about your religious beliefs ( or even thoughts/feelings that are real to you but not based on religious teachings), and if you lie and get caught you are still liable to prosecution, that means you have to do anything anyone asks as long as it is legal, or potentially risk prosecution and a criminal record? So a Christian doctor has to perform abortions? A Muslim chef has to prepare pork? A Jehovah's Witness nurse has to organise a blood donation in the town hall? Please explain now how religion is a protected characteristic, because it doesn't seem to be at all.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Oh well in that case definitely make marriage between infertile couples illegal as well. And couples who don't want children... And if any menopausal woman wants to marry that should be illegal too.
> enguin


Maybe we should also ban hetrosexual marraige as they are the people giving birth to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> So if you can't tell the truth about your religious beliefs ( or even thoughts/feelings that are real to you but not based on religious teachings), and if you lie and get caught you are still liable to prosecution, that means you have to do anything anyone asks as long as it is legal, or potentially risk prosecution and a criminal record? So a Christian doctor has to perform abortions? A Muslim chef has to prepare pork? A Jehovah's Witness nurse has to organise a blood donation in the town hall? Please explain now how religion is a protected characteristic, because it doesn't seem to be at all.


It's really very simple 

If you run a business you have to abide by all the laws that apply to running a business. You have to pay your taxes, provide your employees with relevant safety equipment, fit smoke alarms etc. You also have to adhere to equality laws. Which means that you cannot discriminate against certain specific protected characteristics. These include sexual orientation - the rest are listed a few pages back.

This law, along with all the other laws businesses have to abide by apply to _all._ And having a particular religious belief does not exempt you from adhering to the law.

If businesses were exempt from adhering to equality law because of the religious beliefs of those running or working for the business it would create a loop hole that would leave many people (not only gay people) open to discrimination not only in cake provision but in employment, housing, education etc.

That is why this case (and cake) is so important.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_So a Christian doctor has to perform abortions? A Muslim chef has to prepare pork? A Jehovah's Witness nurse has to organise a blood donation in the town hall?_
Abortions, pork and blood donations have nothing to do with protected characteristics (the way you've put the question), nothing to do with discrimination so they can all refuse in the examples you've given.
_
Please explain now how religion is a protected characteristic, because it doesn't seem to be at all._
They couldn't be refused the jobs because of their religious beliefs, that's how they're protected. The example about preparing pork is a good one. A supermarket cannot refuse to employ a Muslim just because of their religion and most have systems in place to ensure their Muslim employees do not have to handle pork.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ameliajane said:


> It's really very simple
> 
> If you run a business you have to abide by all the laws that apply to running a business. You have to pay your taxes, provide your employees with relevant safety equipment, fit smoke alarms etc. You also have to adhere equality laws. Which means that you cannot discriminate against certain specific protected characteristics. These include sexual orientation - the rest are listed a few pages back.
> 
> ...


But you also have the right not to be the victim of religious abuse in your place of work. So if everyone who worked at a small company held the same religious belief, and your employer ordered you or a colleague to perform a task which went against your beliefs because his business would be sued and he would be bankrupt if you didn't, what then? Does he order you to perform the task and be guilty of religious abuse in the workplace? Do you refuse and take him to a tribunal? Does he refuse the order, be sued and lose his business and everything he has built up (making you unemployed in the process)? This is such a more complicated case than people are trying to make out. Can a gay person order a cake? Of course they can. Can a religious person refuse to decorate a cake? Apparently not!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _So a Christian doctor has to perform abortions? A Muslim chef has to prepare pork? A Jehovah's Witness nurse has to organise a blood donation in the town hall?_
> Abortions, pork and blood donations have nothing to do with protected characteristics, nothing to do with discrimination so they can all refuse in the examples you've given.
> _
> Please explain now how religion is a protected characteristic, because it doesn't seem to be at all._
> They couldn't be refused the jobs because of their religious beliefs, that's how they're protected. The example about preparing pork is a good one. A supermarket cannot refuse to employ a Muslim just because of their religion and most have systems in place to ensure their Muslim employees do not have to handle pork.


 So what systems should the bakery have had, and what systems should other bakeries put in place in future, to ensure a Christian ( or other religious person) does not have to ice a slogan contrary to their religion?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I suspect the bakery openly refused because of the subject matter and didn't bring in the religious aspect until there was need for a legal defence. I suspect this because of the reasoning behind the ruling. Had they said from the get go that refusing the order was because of the religious beliefs of every member of staff then it may have been a different story - just as if your local butcher is a Muslim then it would be OK for him to decline an order for pork.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

ameliajane said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but that isn't quite what the law says. A person cannot just use a different reason for not making the cake.
> 
> In this instance the bakers told the customer that they wouldn't produce the cake because the message on it went against their religious belief.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I was basing it on my interpretatin of a law in a country in which I don't live, so it's definitely a suspect interpretation


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> But you also have the right not to be the victim of religious abuse in your place of work. So if everyone who worked at a small company held the same religious belief, and your employer ordered you or a colleague to perform a task which went against your beliefs because his business would be sued and he would be bankrupt if you didn't, what then? Does he order you to perform the task and be guilty of religious abuse in the workplace? Do you refuse and take him to a tribunal? Does he refuse the order, be sued and lose his business and everything he has built up (making you unemployed in the process)? This is such a more complicated case than people are trying to make out. Can a gay person order a cake? Of course they can. Can a religious person refuse to decorate a cake? Apparently not!


I'm not quite sure what you mean - you'd have to give a specific example but I think Havoc has already just answered this one.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Last year Gibraltar allowed legal partnership for gay couples.

Yes, fairly religious Gibraltar.
How it came about?

A gay couple were refused a gov house, because were legally not recognised as a couple.

They took this decision to EU court, won the case and law was changed in their favour.

No cakes, no religion came into it. Just genuine people in need.

They did not target anyone, but the gov and they did not try to divide our community.

They had wedding cake.

And ate it.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> So what systems should the bakery have had, and what systems should other bakeries put in place in future, to ensure a Christian ( or other religious person) does not have to ice a slogan contrary to their religion?


There is another wrinkle though. 
Religion is open to interpretation, and in some interpretations of Christianity, homosexuality is not contrary to the teachings of the bible. 
So let's use your "at what point does it stop" argument. At what point am I free to interpret the bible to suit what I do and do not have to do at work? As a muslim can I say that in my interpretation of my muslim beliefs not only can I not handle pork, but I can't handle the other meats either because they may have been in contact with the pork. So basically I can't work in the meat section at all. Or what if I decide to be a pastafarian and I say that my beliefs don't allow me to stock pasta or pasta related products?

To me, gay marriage is much more clear cut and easy. 
Homosexuals are not asking for differnt treatment or special rights that others don't have. They're asking for equal treatment and the same rights others already have. Marriage already exists. It's not a special thing created specifically for homosexuals, they're just asking for it to be availabe to all people equally.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

cheekyscrip said:


> By the way in few weeks our gay cousin is getting hitched..will ask them who makes the cake..
> .


And lets not forget that the reason your gay cousin *can* get married is because many, many gay individuals (not activists, individuals) have gone before them making a stand, making a protest, demanding rooms, holding hands and being ridiculed and abused for doing the same.



> It's really very simple
> 
> If you run a business you have to abide by all the laws that apply to running a business. You have to pay your taxes, provide your employees with relevant safety equipment, fit smoke alarms etc. You also have to adhere to equality laws. Which means that you cannot discriminate against certain specific protected characteristics. These include sexual orientation - the rest are listed a few pages back.
> 
> This law, along with all the other laws businesses have to abide by apply to _all._ And having a particular religious belief does not exempt you from adhering to the law.


In a nutshell.

J


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> But you also have the right not to be the victim of religious abuse in your place of work. So if everyone who worked at a small company held the same religious belief, and your employer ordered you or a colleague to perform a task which went against your beliefs because his business would be sued and he would be bankrupt if you didn't, what then? Does he order you to perform the task and be guilty of religious abuse in the workplace? Do you refuse and take him to a tribunal? Does he refuse the order, be sued and lose his business and everything he has built up (making you unemployed in the process)? This is such a more complicated case than people are trying to make out.


Having done a little internetting it seems there is no requirement for (for example) a Muslim working in a supermarket to be allowed to not handle pork or alcohol at work. Acas seem to suggest trying to accommodate the individuals wishes but also taking into consideration other employees, customers and the needs of the business itself.

I think if you were an employee who was asked to perform a task you were not happy to do on religious grounds you would need to check your companies policies, ask your employer to try to accommodate you and if you were not happy with the outcome you'd have to take your case to court and let the court decide.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Obtuse, again. Because it's a big deal and for some (not me, I hasten to add, couldn't care less what anyone else does, frankly) it goes against the tradition of the so-called 'normal' family, two genders, making babies etc. It's been male plus female then babies for as long as forever. Some people won't easily overcome their upbringing which was, at least for anyone over 40, 'traditional', possibly Christian, a mum and a dad. And for the 3rd time, as you appear to be asking, being gay is against Christian beliefs, much as it is frowned upon by many other religions. Regardless of how minor it may seem to be in the Bible, it's one of the big cornerstone philosophies of many religions. Just because you see it as minor, does not mean that others do.


Again, I am not being obtuse, it's the bible that is obtuse and people's interpretation of it.

I have a family member who is gay, but is very christian and he has been to a number of churches who have never preached that homosexuals are sinners or wrong in any way, so it is not a standard thing that is against christian beliefs. I am not asking, I can see clearly that for some it seems to be against their 'faith', however for me personally I feel it is hiding behind a religion as an excuse for being homophobic.

Those who chose to believe that it is such a bad sin, should also be willing to put their neck on the line and follow all of the other words of Liviticus and Deuteronomy, do not wear a jacket of more then one thread, do not eat fat or pork, be unclean if you should touch a woman who is on her period. 
Hopefully, soon, those that believe homosexuality is wrong because of Liviticus will drop that as being ridiculous, as they have all of the rest of it.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Exactly the point I've been trying to make. My example of a paedophile asking for "Lower the Age of Consent to 12" was given because that age is considered legal in some parts of the world. And if men fancying men or women fancying women is a sexual orientation, then surely so must adults fancying those underage. I'm going to get in trouble here, and let me make it very plain I DO NOT agree with paedophilia, but there could be an argument that it is actually MORE natural (on a purely animal instinct basis) to be a paedophile than a homosexual, because if you get to a young female before any other male has had a chance to mate with her you have a chance of siring her offspring (assuming she carries the pregnancy, doesn't die in labour, knows how to look after her offspring, etc). The preference for mating with one of your own sex produces no offspring, so has no evolutionary advantage for that trait to be passed on. This is simply a scientific argument, treating the human animal like another animal. Please don't howl me down because the argument makes you uncomfortable, but think about it in a scientific way. Why do we neuter our female kittens before letting them outside? Because they can get mated and conceive at 4 months old. Does that make the tom cat a paedophile cat, or doing what comes naturally to sire as many litters as possible? Of course humans are not "just" animals, we have a society, (though we are not unique in that), morals, religions, a consciousness of others around us and an awareness of the future, but we have the animal instinct too, and it must be considered along with other factors. In previous threads on similar subjects, the argument has been put forward that homosexuality is an entirely natural thing because it occurs in nature, so perhaps paedophilia should be considered in the same way? Now people are starting to get uncomfortable aren't they? Asking for the slogan "lower the age of consent" - how is that illegal under the current set of rules protecting sexual orientation and right to not be discriminated against? The "customer" is not performing an illegal act, or promoting an illegal act, but asking for legislation to be changed so that his or her preferences would not be illegal if they were to be acted upon in the future. And yet most people reading this ( and my self as I type this) are revolted by paedophilia and want it "stamped out" as it is put above. So exactly how do you word legislation to protect the rights of all, without letting in something nasty by the back door? Who is to say what is nasty, 12 is legal in Angola, should it be legal here? Or are Angolans paedophiles? Or does that make us racists for thinking so? As you say, Jesthar, it could get a whole shed load of messy. The only way I can see forward is to have legislation to protect the real rights of all (Life, health, home, privacy etc), and have peer pressure come into effect for the less important stuff (like cake decorating for goodness sake). So if a baker turns you away you go to another. If every baker in the country gives you the same answer, maybe you and a group of like minded people set up your own and make the best damn cakes around, which everybody wants. You simply can't cry foul for hurt feelings, when others have hurt and broken bodies, it turns away the very support and acceptance you want. If you want acceptance from society, you become a valued part of that society. If these people go back to Ashers and order another cake they will probably have it made for them, but without the smile on the pavement or the friendly toot of a passing car, what will it mean, will life be worth living in that area?


Sometimes, there are just no words.....


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Having done a little internetting it seems there is no requirement for (for example) a Muslim working in a supermarket to be allowed to not handle pork or alcohol at work. Acas seem to suggest trying to accommodate the individuals wishes but also taking into consideration other employees, customers and the needs of the business itself._
It would be perfectly reasonable not to employ someone if their core beliefs meant they couldn't do the job at all - a Muslim in an off licence for example. In more general shops such as supermarkets it's also reasonable to organise shelf stacking so a Muslim doesn't stock the alcohol aisle. If an individual has signed an employment contract stating 'other duties as required' the shelf stacker can be asked to go on the tills and would be expected to put alcohol through. You can't deliberately take a job just to cause trouble - though some have tried.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> To me, gay marriage is much more clear cut and easy.
> Homosexuals are not asking for differnt treatment or special rights that others don't have. They're asking for equal treatment and the same rights others already have. Marriage already exists. It's not a special thing created specifically for homosexuals, they're just asking for it to be availabe to all people equally.


Don't you see that a Christian being asked to support gay marriage is being asked to go against his faith? Marriage already exists, as you rightly point out. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence in this country. Civil partnerships are recognised. The problem is being asked to support gay marriage, when in a Christian marriage ceremony it is very clear that this is a thing created specifically for heterosexuals. From the marriage ceremony :

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company of witnesses to join together this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is between Christ and His Church; which Holy Estate Christ adorned with His presence and first miracle that He wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among all men; and therefore, not entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, soberly and in the fear of God. Into this Holy Estate these two persons present come now to be joined.

I'm sorry, but how is that "open to interpretation"?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God_
Many heterosexual weddings are civil ceremonies with no mention of any God.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Don't you see that a Christian being asked to support gay marriage is being asked to go against his faith? Marriage already exists, as you rightly point out. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence in this country. Civil partnerships are recognised. The problem is being asked to support gay marriage, when in a Christian marriage ceremony it is very clear that this is a thing created specifically for heterosexuals. From the marriage ceremony :
> 
> Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company of witnesses to join together this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is between Christ and His Church; which Holy Estate Christ adorned with His presence and first miracle that He wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among all men; and therefore, not entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, soberly and in the fear of God. Into this Holy Estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
> 
> I'm sorry, but how is that "open to interpretation"?


*Ok please explain this to me. If i choose to marry in a reg. office why would it matter? If we marry in a reg. office, nothing religious is allowed.*


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Don't you see that a Christian being asked to support gay marriage is being asked to go against his faith?


No, I don't.
For one, not all Christians have a problem with homosexuality. They all read the same bible. 
But more importanly in it's essence gay marriage is simply asking for equal treatment. You don't have to support homosexualiy to support equal treatment for all people.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Watch the film.. Bridegroom.. then judge! If in doubt.*


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Catharinem said:


> Don't you see that a Christian being asked to support gay marriage is being asked to go against his faith? Marriage already exists, as you rightly point out. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence in this country. Civil partnerships are recognised. The problem is being asked to support gay marriage, when in a Christian marriage ceremony it is very clear that this is a thing created specifically for heterosexuals. From the marriage ceremony :
> 
> Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company of witnesses to join together this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is between Christ and His Church; which Holy Estate Christ adorned with His presence and first miracle that He wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of St. Paul to be honorable among all men; and therefore, not entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, soberly and in the fear of God. Into this Holy Estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
> 
> I'm sorry, but how is that "open to interpretation"?


Once of a day, yes, the only marriages which took place were between a man and a woman. Once of a day, pregnancy outside of marriage was considered outrageous and pregnancies were hidden, babies given away or brought up with some Auntie posing as Mum. Homosexuality was illegal too, once of a day.

However, times change, things change and Society learns to be more accepting.

I am a Roman Catholic, have been all of my life, but I have never tried to force my beliefs on others or used them as a reason to condemn others for their beliefs.

If we're talking about religion, two phrases spring to mind. "Judge not lest you be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I believe that one day, I will be judged on my own actions and the way I have lived my life, not on whether I succeeded in forcing others to behave as I see appropriate.

Being asked to make an inscription on a cake in return for payment is not being asked to 'support' gay marriage, it was a couple being asked to make a cake, which they do every day of the week.

It is not their place to judge and use their religious beliefs as a flimsy excuse to cover up their prudish ideals.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Don't you see that a Christian being asked to support gay marriage is being asked to go against his faith? Marriage already exists, as you rightly point out. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence in this country. Civil partnerships are recognised. The problem is being asked to support gay marriage, when in a Christian marriage ceremony it is very clear that this is a thing created specifically for heterosexuals. I'm sorry, but how is that "open to interpretation"?


A baker being asked to bake a cake is just being asked to do his/her job in accordance with the law. They are not supporting or promoting anything.

And the baker in question is apparently quite happy to bake Halloween cakes without feeling they are supporting or promoting the occult.

And Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage - there are more definitions of marriage than the particular one you quote.

And there is legal protection to prevent religious organisations from being forced to conduct same sex marriages if they don't want to.

No one is being forced to support anything that goes against their faith.

However, very sadly, some people most definately do want to try to force others to feel and be treated as inferior...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> n.
> Maybe gay activists should redirect their effort where it is truly needed?
> Russia?
> Gay people are not Putin favourites.


Not read all this thread by any means. But some of the posts I have read certainly show that the effort is needed here as well as in Russia.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Not read all this thread by any means. But some of the posts I have read certainly show that the effort is needed here as well as in Russia.


I approve of the purpose not the means. As I posted earlier Gibraltar sorted it in a way without offending or dividing our community.
Those bakers would not iced messages like" sex before marriage" or " worship devil"...so what?

Trying to defend your rights by offending or upsetting someone else and destroying their livehood just because of their beliefs?
Sorry, that stinks...


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> destroying their livehood just because of their beliefs?


Wait did I miss something? How was the bakery's livelihood destroyed?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Not read all this thread by any means. But some of the posts I have read certainly show that the effort is needed here as well as in Russia.


I have two close friends and work colleagues who are gay and living together in a civil partnership.
They don't want to get married as neither of them are Christians and they don't see the point. They have a legal agreement on their shared property and other things of importance (mainly because relatives kept on until they made one) and for them it's enough. They are very happy together.
What they also want is to be left in peace to get on with their lives together. And to be themeselves within their community - not 'those gay guys', just themselves.

They don't want to join any gay pride marches (in fact they both say that there is no way they would ever want to go along the street saying "look at me, I'm gay", because, to them they just are and that's all there is to it), neither do they want to take part in any demos to further gay rights, although they do appreciate the work done in the past.

I spoke to them about the cake this morning and they were actually quite angry: but not with the bakers; with the activists who insisted on going to that particular bakers shop so that they could then take the bakers to court.

As far as they are both concerned, this type of behaviour doesn't help gay people; it just makes them stand out as, and I quote, "f****ing stupid t*****s".

But what do I know?
I'm just conveying their opinion on the 'gay cake'.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

cheekyscrip said:


> As I posted earlier Gibraltar sorted it in a way without offending or dividing our community.
> ..


No, Gibraltar was forced to 'sort it' (honour equality legislation) by the European Court ...not quite the same thing.

J


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

The costs of law suit , the bad press, boycott, the accusations...would you wish it on your own business?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> The costs of law suit , the bad press, boycott, the accusations...would you wish it on your own business?


You're moving goal posts. You started by saying their livelihood was destroyed. Now you're asking me what I would wish on a business if it were mine. I was simply asking if their livelihood was destroyed, and apparently it wasn't.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> No, Gibraltar was forced to 'sort it' (honour equality legislation) by the European Court ...not quite the same thing.
> 
> J


Was forced by two feisty ladies who did not mount crusade against bakery but took the government on! And so should do gay couple in NI...take the government to EU court and force the law to be changed.
No one would have changed the law in Gibraltar if not those two ladies.
No Christians were harmed during making of that change...


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

They could have refused to serve him but given a different reason -which no doubt will happen in future.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

silvi said:


> I have two close friends and work colleagues who are gay and living together in a civil partnership.
> They don't want to get married as neither of them are Christians and they don't see the point. They have a legal agreement on their shared property and other things of importance (mainly because relatives kept on until they made one) and for them it's enough. They are very happy together.
> What they also want is to be left in peace to get on with their lives together. And to be themeselves within their community - not 'those gay guys', just themselves.
> 
> ...


During the civil rights movement in the US, many black people were told (by their own families) to knock it off, to stop rocking the boat, to stop demonstrating and making an "issue". 
Many women were told similar.

Others thoroughly disagreed and advocated for deliberate civil disobedience in order to make a point.

I think both sides have valid points. And together, both sides created change.

No matter how you go about it, change is messy. Change is difficult. Change is met with resistance. We humans don't like change, even when it's change for the better.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to fight for equality. I just know it has to be fought for.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> I approve of the purpose not the means. As I posted earlier Gibraltar sorted it in a way without offending or dividing our community.
> Those bakers would not iced messages like" sex before marriage" or " worship devil"...so what?
> 
> Trying to defend your rights by offending or upsetting someone else and destroying their livehood just because of their beliefs?
> Sorry, that stinks...


Sorry, I may have missed something - but whose livelihood has been destroyed because of their beliefs?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry, I may have missed something - but whose livelihood has been destroyed because of their beliefs?


Great minds LOL, look a few posts up.

And apparently no livelihood was destroyed in the making (or not making) of the cake


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

ouesi said:


> During the civil rights movement in the US, many black people were told (by their own families) to knock it off, to stop rocking the boat, to stop demonstrating and making an "issue".
> Many women were told similar.
> 
> Others thoroughly disagreed and advocated for deliberate civil disobedience in order to make a point.
> ...


I agree with all of that. I've been involved in quite a few political movements myself . And, as a woman and as someone of mixed cultural heritage, I know what it's like to be discriminated against.

But when my friends, who should be pleased with others taking action on their behalf, are angered by the action the activists have taken, because, they say, it will be counter-productive, I'm inclined to listen to them.

I know this is only two gay guys I'm talking about here, but it would be interesting to know how many more feel exactly the same way - that some 'fights made on their behalf' are just ridiculous.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

silvi said:


> But when my friends, who should be pleased with others taking action on their behalf, are angered by the action the activists have taken, because, they say, it will be counter-productive, I'm inclined to listen to them.


This is a repeating theme in all these social movements though.
The homosexual community is no different than any other group of people joined by just one thing, be it skin color, race, ethnicity etc. They may all be gay, but they are also all very much diverse individuals who all have different view and sensibilities and ideas about how things should be done.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> I have two close friends and work colleagues who are gay and living together in a civil partnership.
> They don't want to get married as neither of them are Christians and they don't see the point. They have a legal agreement on their shared property and other things of importance (mainly because relatives kept on until they made one) and for them it's enough. They are very happy together.
> What they also want is to be left in peace to get on with their lives together. And to be themeselves within their community - not 'those gay guys', just themselves.
> 
> ...


Each to their own - your friends are pefectly entitled to not want to be activists, take place in demos, and just live their lives together peacefullly. But it's enirely due to past activists that they are able to do that.

It would be a wonderful world if people were allowed to get on with their lives without being judged on their sexual preferences - but sadly the tone of some (but only some, and thankfully not the majority) of posts on here would suggest that there is still a need for activists to get the message across.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Great minds LOL, look a few posts up.
> 
> And apparently no livelihood was destroyed in the making (or not making) of the cake


LOL - must stop this business of replying before I've read to the end of the thread


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

cheekyscrip said:


> Was forced by two feisty ladies who did not mount crusade against bakery but took the government on! And so should do gay couple in NI...take the government to EU court and force the law to be changed.
> No one would have changed the law in Gibraltar if not those two ladies.
> No Christians were harmed during making of that change...


There's a vote tomorrow in NI, Cheeky, in case you didn't know.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Vote tomorrow is in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland flat refuses to change.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> There's a vote tomorrow in NI, Cheeky, in case you didn't know.


 I did not know...neither @cinnamontoast ..
Actually I took modest part in pro gay movement behind Iron Curtain and so on in very religious country...
But would never go about it using other people's faith...
Neither my gay friends...

Best luck to the Irish gay folk.



Jonescat said:


> Vote tomorrow is in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland flat refuses to change.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Each to their own - your friends are pefectly entitled to not want to be activists, take place in demos, and just live their lives together peacefullly. But it's enirely due to past activists that they are able to do that.
> 
> It would be a wonderful world if people were allowed to get on with their lives without being judged on their sexual preferences - but sadly the tone of some (but only some, and thankfully not the majority) of posts on here would suggest that there is still a need for activists to get the message across.


Yes there is, but there are more effective ways than via a cake with Bert and Ernie in the icing.

And yes, the cake debate has gone viral. But I think that says more about the audience than the message. And I wonder whether minds will be opened by this debate or prejudices hardened.

Edit: And the cynic in me is still asking the question:
What news was sidelined by this debate?


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2015)

Best of luck to all the Irish folk, not just the gay Irish.
A society where all are included and treated equally is a healthier place for everyone, not just the marginalized groups.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

The vote is in the republic, they are too bothered about wrecking Stormont, flags and what not this side of the border. Sigh.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Yes there is, but there are more effective ways than via a cake with Bert and Ernie in the icing.
> 
> And yes, the cake debate has gone viral. But I think that says more about the audience than the message. And I wonder whether minds will be opened by this debate or prejudices hardened.
> 
> ...


Wish we could still rep - this post definitely deserves a green blob!

I would like to be able to say minds will have been opened but, going by some of the theads on here, those whose minds aren't already open on this subject seem to have kept them firmly closed and merely tried to find ways to justify their prejudice.

As for which news is being sidelines - don;t even get me started on that! I share your cynicism.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

silvi said:


> Yes there is, but there are more effective ways than via a cake with Bert and Ernie in the icing.
> 
> And yes, the cake debate has gone viral. But I think that says more about the audience than the message. And I wonder whether minds will be opened by this debate or prejudices hardened.
> 
> ...


See I keep swinging on how important this is. One side of me, the peaceable, live and let live side, thinks just let the bakers be. Why make someone compromise their beliefs in favour of your lifestyle when there are other options? Attempting to force compliance will just lead to resentment. It's just a bloody cake!

Then there's the other side, the one that gets annoyed by hypocrisy and bigotry, that asks why would anyone object to equality? Why should someone's out dated belief be allowed to affect anyone else? This should not even be an issue. It's just a bloody cake!

It's the little things that mount up, though, so I can understand testing the laws and making a stand. I just feel that for a lot of the anti-gay brigade, this is more ammunition in their quest to marginalize ("look at how petty they are!!!" "They don't respect other's way of life - hypocrites!!!") and that's going to make day to day life harder for the people who just want to be left to live their lives in peace.

Hopefully it will be short term pain for long term gain (because I have an inner optimist, rather than a cynic :Woot ).


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ I just feel that for a lot of the anti-gay brigade, this is more ammunition in their quest to marginalize ("look at how petty they are!!!"_
It wasn't the gay activists who brought the prosecution. I realise people have differing views on this result but nobody should ever place the blame for a result of a trial on the victim of crime.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

havoc said:


> _ I just feel that for a lot of the anti-gay brigade, this is more ammunition in their quest to marginalize ("look at how petty they are!!!"_
> It wasn't the gay activists who brought the prosecution. I realise people have differing views on this result but nobody should ever place the blame for a result of a trial on the victim of crime.


No of course they shouldn't, but just look at the responses here - most posters have assumed it *was* the gay activists who brought the prosecution. Anyone who has a vested interest in this case - in whichever direction - will read the report with their own biases in place and find them further strengthened. In my experience the self righteous types rarely let fact or fairness get in the way of a good rant, anyway.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Wish we could still rep - this post definitely deserves a green blob!
> 
> I would like to be able to say minds will have been opened but, going by some of the theads on here, those whose minds aren't already open on this subject seem to have kept them firmly closed and merely tried to find ways to justify their prejudice.
> 
> As for which news is being sidelines - don;t even get me started on that! I share your cynicism.


This is true
Obviously both sidesd decided to be 'activist' about this episode
What do they both believe they have achieved?
What do they think people have now learned?
Neither will be what they tell themselves it will be
The everyday everyman non activist, non political lesson is what will be learned and achieved; that being, if I object to doing something upon personal belief grounds, I will just make up some other bullshit as an excuse.
Which was all these Christians could have and should have done in the first place
Therefore, this ruling, in reality, has not increased the likelihood that people would not be turned down for asking for a proverbial 'gay cake'.
Its main achievement is merely to create yet another layer of empty and unenforceable beuracracy


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> This is true
> Obviously both sidesd decided to be 'activist' about this episode
> What do they both believe they have achieved?
> What do they think people have now learned?
> ...


There may be bit more utility to it than that. Read the full judgement and you will see that the judge has set very clear and useful precedent.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meanwhile some poor souls who just make living baking cakes, where shredded . Imagine what those people must have felt? Maybe not the brightest folk? Legal nuances lost on them . They believe what the Good Book say and look where it led them!
They were most likely born into this ..NI!
Imagine what effect being dragged through the court might have on someone who is not a criminal..

Take on govs, take on institutions, their clever clogs. Lawyers and politicians.
I zapatero a sus zapatos.

Not butchers and bakers and candlestick makers...

Now it seems it is dangerous to ice a cake without advice from your lawyer .


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Satori said:


> There may be bit more utility to it than that. Read the full judgement and you will see that the judge has set very clear and useful precedent.


FYI, Just in case your don't have a link to it.....

https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/J...s/2015/[2015] NICty 2/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> FYI, Just in case your don't have a link to it.....
> 
> https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/[2015] NICty 2/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm


Dude, I aint got time to spend an evening reading all that 
Especially when I have Song Of Ice and Fire Novels on the go

Thanks for the thought though.

A brief skim just reinforced my point, another ream of words.
How's that gonna work in the real world?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Although the judgement is superficially repetitive and goes on a bit, the basic idea seems fairly straight forward - short version is that the law appears to say that if you want to make money from the public, you have to take the money of whoever comes through the door, provided what they ask is lawful.

What I don't quite understand is how you would set yourself up as a Christian business. If the business had had " religious objectives in its Memorandum and Articles of Association" would that have made a difference?


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Jonescat said:


> Although the judgement is superficially repetitive and goes on a bit, the basic idea seems fairly straight forward - short version is that the law appears to say that if you want to make money from the public, you have to take the money of whoever comes through the door, provided what they ask is lawful.
> 
> What I don't quite understand is how you would set yourself up as a Christian business. If the business had had " religious objectives in its Memorandum and Articles of Association" would that have made a difference?


Yes, but the law cannot state it would be illegal for a person not to accept custom
Thus, this episode has not achieved the aim its 'activists' envisage.
It has achieved a different aim - retailers and traders now know to invent reasons to turn down custom they dont like the look of.
This ruling has not achieved the aim of compelling anymore traders or retailers than their were beforehand to accept custom/business they dont approve of .


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> Dude, I aint got time to spend an evening reading all that
> Especially when I have Song Of Ice and Fire Novels on the go
> 
> Thanks for the thought though.
> ...


Well, it ought to stop further funding of cases like the defendant's for example given a reduced likelihood of successful defence. That assuming the judgement is not appealed of course. That means in practise folk will be advised to just supply the service in question rather than p1ss away legal costs. May not matter for icing sugar but I expect we won't see any more hotel type cases in future. Btw, I don't believe that refusing to serve without giving reason will get anyone around the law as as been suggested on this thread, although setting up an establishment with a clear religious objective may do. (I am not skilled in reading these things).

Someone raised earlier in the thread the apparent contradiction between the rights of the bakers under human right legislation and those of gay customer under equality legislation. The judgement specifically recognises and considers this difficulty and concludes very clearly that the latter rights trump the former this scenario. I believe this closes a lot of argument.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> What I don't quite understand is how you would set yourself up as a Christian business. If the business had had " religious objectives in its Memorandum and Articles of Association" would that have made a difference?


I think the judge deliberately left that open. It was raised but not considered by the look of it.

Reason? The problem now is what if the gay couple and their backers want to push things. What if they go into the shop and ask for a gay cake every day thus forcing the bakers to either comply or be shut down. I am not suggesting that they will do this, but they or someone else could. The only solution to that might be to change the memorandum and articles to narrow the scope of permitted business and also make that clear by, for example, calling themselves Asher's Christian Bakery e.g.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> That means in practise folk will be advised to just supply the service in question rather than p1ss away legal costs.
> 
> .


But this sentence just presupposes just these two options, when their is simply a third most likely real world option.
Dont supply the service, and just tell the customer you are too busy or something. Legal costs becomes moot then

Thus, the most obvious and most likely change that this judgement will bring is not that people will now choose to serve people or do things even when against their personal principles, it will be they simply will make up an excuse.

This is what most rational regular people would do anyway, just as these silly bakers should have done.
Its human nature, people dont want the fuss, and/or they dont want to tell the customer the real reason, as they dont want to offend them.
Now they will also do it ,knowing to do otherwise will get them legal trouble.

Simple

So all we have achieved is just another law for the sake of a law, another piece of meaningless bureaucracy in our regulated obsessed culture


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> Btw, I don't believe that refusing to serve without giving reason will get anyone around the law as as been suggested on this thread,
> .


Of course it will
How would it not??

No law that says you have to accept a customer or sell something if you dont want to.
But anyway, why would you not give a reason.
You would just invent something


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> Of course it will
> How would it not??
> 
> No law that says you have to accept a customer or sell something if you dont want to.
> ...


Actually the law in question says precisely that and if I make up some excuse not to provide the service the court has every right to look behind my words and into my intentions based on the evidence presented.

ETA: and as evidence of that view see this part of the judgement....

[68]The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are opposed to the political opinion that supports gay marriage which they regard as sinful and is contrary to their genuinely held religious beliefs. They believe that the Plaintiff holds a different religious belief and political opinion which seeks to extend marriage to same sex couples. I find that this was the reason why the order was cancelled and which is direct discrimination prohibited under Article 3(2) of the 1998 Order and as such cannot be justified.
"

Here the judge determines WHY the order was cancelled. He considers the reason given by the defendant as well as other factors. In a case where the defendant makes up another excuse, that is entered into evidence but it does not mean they will be believed. It is the real motivation that matters and that is for the court to decide.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> Actually the law in question says precisely that and if I make up some excuse not to provide the service the court has every right to look behind my words and into my intentions based on the evidence presented.


Based on the evidence presented being the operative words
If i just tell you I'm a bit busy at the moment, or I got a headache so need slow down next couple days, but I can recommend Joe bloggs down the road, what can you gonna do about it?

I doubt this judgement states it is illegal to refuse to accept business or custom

That would be a whole law unto itself
Thats never gonna happen


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> Based on If i just tell you I'm a bit busy at the moment, or I got a headache so need slow down next couple days, but I can recommend Joe bloggs down the road, what can you gonna do about it?


If I have reason to suspect that your true motivation is discrimintory and I can produce evidence to that effect, such as a pattern of refused orders, I take you to court and you lose. Simple. You might not like it but that's the law.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> If I have reason to suspect that your true motivation is discrimintory and I can produce evidence to that effect, such as a pattern of refused orders, .


How you gonna do that?
How are you going to come up with the idea in the first place?
Why would you think that?
Or will you be thinking that as a default position every time someone cant accommodate you?
So will you be investigating all such people, just in case?

Or would you, like 99% of people, when told "sorry, bit busy at the moment, have you tried Joe Bloggs down the road", just shrug, get on with life, and then go to Joe Bloggs down the road? and even if irked by the guy saying he's too busy, just huff and puff a bit, go to Joe Bloggs down the road, and tell your friends that the other guy was rubbish, dont bother using him?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> How you gonna do that?


Duh. I'll just call my mate and ask him to go into the shop and order a cake with a different message and when he is accepted, case closed.



chesspiece said:


> How are you going to come up with the idea in the first place?


It is blindingly obvious.



chesspiece said:


> Or would you, like 99% of people, when told "sorry, bit busy at the moment, have you tried Joe Bloggs down the road", just shrug, get on with life.....


Depends if I want to make a point.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Satori said:


> Duh. I'll just call my mate and ask him to go into the shop and order a cake with a different message and when he is accepted, case closed.
> 
> It is blindingly obvious.
> 
> Depends if I want to make a point.


Yes, but as I said earlier, people will be aware of this ruling now. So they will be smart about it. Especially if they feel strongly about their rights to their personal beliefs, or their rights to choose what to do with their own business.
I dont know about you, I have been to businesses plenty of times, and been told they are too busy at the moment, or, or more to the point, too busy to supply what i need _by the time i need it._
What did i walk away thinking?
Am I being discriminated against, so do i need to go thru the sizable time, effort, and planning to organise a scam with my friend?
Or, what a crap company, and i will tell all my friends that they are?

And thats the point, 99% people dont want to make a point. They have a life to get on with.
So this law has not achieved its intention to suddenly increase the incidence of belief based individuals to perform activities they have personal moral objections to.

You can write as many detailed regulations about human interactions as you like, but they are only gonna work in as much as individuals live by them, as their is no enforcement body available. And then you run up against human nature. People just have better or more immediately pressing everyday concerns to be getting on with.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Such a pity they didn't go the refusal on the grounds of copyright route.
Personally, I don't think that a judge would let equality legislation overrule a threat to sue by Disney.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ What I don't quite understand is how you would set yourself up as a Christian business. If the business had had " religious objectives in its Memorandum and Articles of Association" would that have made a difference?_
If they refused all orders which didn't have a Christian theme in line with their own beliefs then they could have refused this one - or at least I believe the judgement would have been different. I gave an example early on in the thread of a Christian bookshop near me which only sells books relevant to that belief system and could quite legitimately refuse to order any book which didn't.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chesspiece said:


> Of course it will
> How would it not??
> 
> No law that says you have to accept a customer or sell something if you dont want to.
> ...



And why do you think a Christian who had truly refused to bake this cake on religious grounds would think it is ok to lie about reasons for not baking it instead? Surely lying about their reason for not baking it would be against the teaching of their religion?

_Do not lie. Do not deceive one another_. (Leviticus 19:11)

_No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence_. 
(Psalm 101:7)

T_he LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful_. (Proverbs 12:22)

_Better to be poor than a liar_. (Proverbs 19:22)

_For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned._ (Matthew 12:37)


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> And why do you think a Christian who had truly refused to bake this cake on religious grounds would think it is ok to lie about reasons for not baking it instead? Surely lying about their reason for not baking it would be against the teaching of their religion?
> 
> _Do not lie. Do not deceive one another_. (Leviticus 19:11)
> 
> ...


I agree.
But thats Christianity for you.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chesspiece said:


> I agree.
> But thats Christianity for you.


Whilst I'm no fan of christianity, in this particular case it's you proposing that the way forward will be for them to lie about their reasons instead of explaining that they won't bake the cake because of their beliefs.

I'm merely saying that if they truly don't want to bake the cake because of their beliefs, lying about their reasons for not baking the cake will not be a possible way out of the situation for them because that is also against their beliefs.

Of course, if they are only using their beliefs as an excuse for justifying their homophobia, then they probably wouldn't be averse to lying either.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

In meantime Ireland celebrates new law...gay couples can marry now...
For they did not fight the bakers but demanded that nation votes and though most folk there are Christians they voted for it.


SO MAYBE NI can DO the same?

Bakers lost but it did not change the law about marriage for gay couples.

Sesame Street issued a serious disclaimer though. Eric and Bernie are just friends. They are also puppets and do not exist waist down.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

cheekyscrip said:


> In meantime Ireland celebrates new law...gay couples can marry now...
> For they did not fight the bakers but demanded that nation votes and though most folk there are Christians they voted for it.
> 
> SO MAYBE NI can DO the same?
> ...


Maybe Sesame Street will now take on gay activists ?


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> What I don't quite understand is how you would set yourself up as a Christian business. If the business had had "religious objectives in its Memorandum and Articles of Association" would that have made a difference?


Actually it is illegal in the UK to include something in your memorandum and articles that breaks a law, so the formation of your company would be void if you stated in you M&A that you would not take orders from gay clients who requested gay logos/slogans. Religious organisations are allowed some leeway - but that only includes recognised churches who are set up as non profit organisations - something this baker was not



chesspiece said:


> No law that says you have to accept a customer or sell something if you dont want to.
> But anyway, why would you not give a reason.
> You would just invent something


In many ways you're quite right. shops can refuse to sell to anyone (incidentally they can also refuse to sell at the advertised price should they wish - provided it is an error and not a deliberate attempt to mislead). However what other people said is equally true. If people feel they are being discriminated against it would be relatively easy to find a pattern of 'refusal' that would indicate discrimination and most lawyers would love the case - it's a near sure win.

I can think of ways round it, but I'm not going to say as I don't want anyone finding them and getting ideas


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_In many ways you're quite right. shops can refuse to sell to anyone (incidentally they can also refuse to sell at the advertised price should they wish_
Shops don't have to sell anything to anybody, they're private property and if they ask you to leave you are trespassing. None of this has anything to do with this case. They accepted an order for a cake and then rejected it because of the requested decoration. It couldn't have been a much more blatant discrimination.


----------



## Erenya (Jul 22, 2014)

couldn't agree more, I was just saying that as it's a common misconception that it something is advertised at a specific price people think the shops must sell it to you and at that price - off topic I agree


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Couple of thoughts:

Firstly, it seems that the problem was that the bakers were Christian, rather than it being a Christian business: the problem would have been be avoided if they had advertised as a Christian bakery. So if a Christian were to go to a bakery run by gay owners, and request the Bible quote referring to homosexuality as an abomination, would the bakery have to comply unless they had already set up their business as Bloggs Gay Bakery?

Secondly, if it is the people that run the bakery that hold the religious beliefs (rather than the business), surely it is the people who ordered the cake that were discriminated against (rather than the cake). So the question has to be asked : if a straight person were to have requested the same cake with the same slogan, would the order have been accepted? If both orders were rejected, the bakery would be treating straight and gay customers the same, and would not be discriminating ( as you can't discriminate against a cake!). In the same way as a black person would have suffered discrimination if told to leave a restaurant that served white people, but would not have suffered discrimination if told it was closing time and white people were also being turned away.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Is this the difference between direct and indirect discrimination? So, although everyone can ask for a this message and therefore the rule seems fair, it isn't because it the rules affects the group with the protected characteristic more?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_In the same way as a black person would have suffered discrimination if told to leave a restaurant that served white people, but would not have suffered discrimination if told it was closing time and white people were also being turned away._
If it really is the advertised closing time then fine. However, if the restaurant owner decides to close early because they don't want to serve the black person then it's discrimination.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_So if a Christian were to go to a bakery run by gay owners, and request the Bible quote referring to homosexuality as an abomination, would the bakery have to comply *unless they had already set up their business as Bloggs Gay Bakery?*_
Bloggs Gay Bakery must only do cakes with a gay theme - that's what would define it as a gay bakery just as only selling religious books is what defines a religious bookshop. Ashers were not a Christian bakery just because the owners were Christians as they did not confine themselves to cakes based on their faith. They were prepared to do cakes for all sorts of non faith based events and with all sorts of non Christian decoration.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> _So if a Christian were to go to a bakery run by gay owners, and request the Bible quote referring to homosexuality as an abomination, would the bakery have to comply *unless they had already set up their business as Bloggs Gay Bakery?*_
> Bloggs Gay Bakery must only do cakes with a gay theme - that's what would define it as a gay bakery just as only selling religious books is what defines a religious bookshop. Ashers were not a Christian bakery just because the owners were Christians as they did not confine themselves to cakes based on their faith. They were prepared to do cakes for all sorts of non faith based events and with all sorts of non Christian decoration.


You've missed my point entirely. If a gay couple ran a bakery business, and had NOT set up as Bloggs Gay Bakery ( after all, why should they advertise their private sexuality any more than Ashers bakers advertised their personal religious beliefs?), then their bakery could NOT turn away a request for a bible quote referring to homosexuality as an abomination as 1) They would be discriminating against Christians (religion being a protected characteristic) by refusing a Bible quote, 2) their own sexuality would not be a protected characteristic as they had not advertised their business as a gay business. They couldn't afterwards claim that they were gay and the Christians should not have placed the order with them, in the same way that Ashers were not able to claim their Faith prevented them from accepting business retrospectively. I'm just trying to highlight the problems in the case, by taking the reasoning to it's logical next stage.


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

Mr Gizmo said:


> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQqQIwBw&url=http://news.sky.com/story/1486774/gay-cake-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination&ei=GxZbVeTtMInU7Aay14HQCg&usg=AFQjCNEn0P6hNnEtdIq7849MWVIpKqJWNw&bvm=bv.93564037,d.ZGU
> 
> So what do you think,right or wrong.
> I would like to know what Bert & Ernie have got to do with it.


Apparently they are a gay couple according to have I got news for you it was confirmed last friday


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2015)

@Catharinem, if you look at the history of the civil rights movement, a lot of what you're asking has already been addressed by the history books. Plenty of whites only businesses tried all sorts of ways to get around new laws and avoid serving blacks. So yeah, if you try hard enough and are clever enough I bet there is a way around having to make the cake that says "support gay marriage".

I guess my question then becomes though, is it really worth that kind of effort to make an issue about homosexuality? I mean, yeah, I get it, businesses have rights too, but we're talking gay marriage here, not drowning puppies. Is it *that* big of a deal for people who love each other to want the right to make a lifelong commitment to each other and have that commitment recognized by the law?

Oh, and for the record  (Not a gay-owned business, just a family-owned business that has been around forever.)


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)




----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_You've missed my point entirely. If a gay couple ran a bakery business, and had NOT set up as Bloggs Gay Bakery ( after all, why should they advertise their private sexuality any more than Ashers bakers advertised their personal religious beliefs?), then their bakery could NOT turn away a request for a bible quote referring to homosexuality as an abomination_
Sorry I did misunderstand. Personal beliefs cannot override the laws on discrimination and no protected characteristic is deemed more important than another so you are correct that if a gay bakery discriminated against another protected characteristic then it could face a lawsuit.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Hmmm. They are appealing. Wonder what the argument will be?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ainst-discrimination-verdict-northern-ireland


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

Funded, of course, by the right wing, fundamentalist Christian Institute who have a track record of fighting these type of cases - and generally losing.

These people have campaigned vociferously against every piece of gay equality legislation proposed in the last 25 years, producing propaganda that depicts gay people as immoral, diseased, drug addicted and prone to pedophilia.

They want personal beliefs to be legitimate grounds for exemption from adhering to anti-discrimination legislation. They know that this would render equality laws unenforceable.

They would happily see people fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, denied services and even lose their children and they have close links with extremist Christian organisations in the US - groups that campaign to see homosexuality re-criminalised.

And all the time they cry _Christian_ persecution and use cases like Asher's to gain media sympathy...

If the McArthurs do not want to be seen to be supporting a cause they don't agree with the solution is simple: place a disclaimer on their web site stating the fact that they don't necessarily endorse the views of their customers. And ask a staff member who doesn't share their beliefs to bake the cake. This would have very little impact on the McArthurs.

The alternative - an unenforceable equality law, could have a truly devastating impact on the lives of many people - and the McArthur's know this full well.

Any drop of sympathy I might have had for them has evaporated...


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2015)

Satori said:


> Hmmm. They are appealing. Wonder what the argument will be?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ainst-discrimination-verdict-northern-ireland


I just read the whole article and I just don't get how Christian beliefs are being trampled on?
Baking a cake that says "support gay marriage" isn't asking them to be gay, isn't even asking them to support gay marriage, it's simply asking them to bake a cake.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Anyone watch the Good Wife? The gay couple refused a wedding cake by a religious baker case!! It was aired this week, don't know when it was filmed, but talk about art imitating life!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

If gay personwas refused to be served then it is discrimination. Much as I support gay rights and dislike extreme religion fanatism...I cannot see why anyone should be obliged to put that message on if gay marriage is not legal there? 
If I refused a cake with support cannabis message ...many people want that legalised!..do I discriminate against users?
For me there is sense of wrong doin against bakers whose feelings were trampled in a process..
So whose feeling should not be injured?

No one has rights to refuse selling products which are on the shelf. But should be able to refuse something custom made...
Just great pity that it was not Jewish or muslim bakery..fir if it was the compensation would be paid to them...for no one dares to offend those religions nowadays and bends backward to accommodate.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> I cannot see why anyone should be obliged to put that message on if gay marriage is not legal there?


It is illegal in Northern Ireland but Southern Ireland has just had a referendum to allow Gay Marriage and it's been heavily supported by those in the North of Ireland the cake was being commissioned for a civic event in Bangor, County Down, to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meezey said:


> It is illegal in Northern Ireland but Southern Ireland has just had a referendum to allow Gay Marriage and it's been heavily supported by those in the North of Ireland the cake was being commissioned for a civic event in Bangor, County Down, to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.


Which is fine..but unless gay activists will go now to.muslim bakery and Jewish bakery with the same demand...they pick on Christians.

Irony : Jesus actually wanted all inclusive religion.
Universal God for all. Black and white, slaves, women, children..all nation.while Judaism was limited to pure Jews. 
Jesus would welcome anyone.

Even criminals and prostitutes.
Surely happily would have included gay and trans.

So fundamentalists go against the fundaments of Christianity which was love and tolerance!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Jesus wanted God for all religion. Women and slaves. Any nation any status..
Even whores and murders.
No reason to think gay or trans were not included, so fundamentalists get it wrong.
Idiots in Ireland wrote: Gay won, christians lost.

Surely most Christians got it right in Ireland? Gay people belong.

Bakers were wrong on those grounds as they lacked tolerance but unfortunately until their church get it right..they will think the Earth is flat.
But to punish them for that what they honestly believe however wrong that can be?
That is lack of tolerance exhibited by those who fight for tolerance.
How ironic.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> That is lack of tolerance exhibited by those who fight for tolerance. How ironic.


This sounds good but what it really means is tolerance of _intolerance_. It's a very neat twist on the meaning of tolerance. There lies the real irony. And the Christian Institute, whose views and tactics the McArthurs clearly do not have a problem with, are certainly not known for their tolerance!


cheekyscrip said:


> So whose feeling should not be injured?


This is _exactly_ why this case is so important - because it is not just about hurt feelings.

Having to abide by the law and bake a cake with a slogan you don't agree with or provide a service for somebody you don't approve of does not cause the provider any real problems. Some discomfort or annoyance maybe but no real financial or social difficulties.

On the other hand, the alternative - being allowed to refuse service to someone because of your belief system - would mean people could be refused not only cakes and an infinite number of other products and services but also accommodation, mortgages, education and jobs, as well as being made to feel like second class citizens.

That is why, when these laws were drafted, exemption from the law on the grounds of belief was considered and was very deliberately excluded.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

And while gay activist in NI won cake plus500£ and antagonized people on both sides..gay activists in Oreland got the marriage and Christians voted yes in majority. Maybe because no one trampled on their beliefs? 
I truly think that in NI they won the cake but lost the cause and ot I not about finicky laws but people.
It looked that the bakery was deliberately chosen to make a point and no Agent Provocateur sits well with me...whether gay, bi or uni...

If this activist does not discriminate then.shoud go to.muslim.bakery , Jewish and take them all to court.

Wish to see if outcome is the same.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> If this activist does not discriminate then.shoud go to.muslim.bakery , Jewish and take them all to court.
> 
> Wish to see if outcome is the same.


This is NI though no?
Are there any Jewish bakeries in NI? Muslim ones? Genuine question, IDK...
I know in the bible belt of the US, you'd be hard pressed to find any significant Jewish or Muslim communities.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

In Nl in Belfast possible as they have muslim and Jews..who often have bakeries.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> In Nl in Belfast possible as they have muslim and Jews..who often have bakeries.


Ummm very few Jews or Muslims here and no bakeries I know of?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Can I also add until this cases I didn't even know Asher's was owned by a Christian family, they don't advertise themselves as a Christian bakery.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Ummm very few Jews or Muslims here and no bakeries I know of?


NI is British territory so is Gibraltar.
You can check with our Chassidic Jews and our muslim ..
Both own bakeries..
Else just ask your imam and rabbi.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> NI is British territory so is Gibraltar.
> You can check with our Chassidic Jews and our muslim ..
> Both own bakeries..
> Else just ask your imam and rabbi.


Cheeky I am well aware what Northern Ireland is I live here... We have a very small Jewish community, and even smaller Muslim one.


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

No doubt there are rabbis and imams here, as there is a growing population of Muslims but I seriously doubt there are any bakeries that would gain enough profit to do a viable trade. NI is quite small and although it was years ago, when my mother worked on hospital wards, a Jewish patient died and a rabbi had to be brought up from Dublin, although as I say that was years ago.

@Meezey I knew they were a Christian, family run bakery! I don't actually know how, but I did!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Mrsred said:


> No doubt there are rabbis and imams here, as there is a growing population of Muslims but I seriously doubt there are any bakeries that would gain enough profit to do a viable trade. NI is quite small and although it was years ago, when my mother worked on hospital wards, a Jewish patient died and a rabbi had to be brought up from Dublin, although as I say that was years ago.
> 
> @Meezey I knew they were a Christian, family run bakery! I don't actually know how, but I did!


I must of had my head under a rock, that said I don't even think I've been in any of their shops lol There used to be a large Jewish communities here but think they all started to leave during the troubles think I remember reading that a prominent Jewish business man was shot and that was the start of people leaving. The Asian and Eastern Europeans seem to not even get enough business too keep their shops open and they have larger communities.


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> not about finicky laws but people.


Totally agree.

These laws protect people from losing their jobs, being denied education, loans, mortgages, housing and basic human dignity.

Not at all about 'finicky laws' but indeed, very much about _people._


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I must of had my head under a rock, that said I don't even think I've been in any of their shops lol There used to be a large Jewish communities here but think they all started to leave during the troubles think I remember reading that a prominent Jewish business man was shot and that was the start of people leaving. The Asian and Eastern Europeans seem to not even get enough business too keep their shops open and they have larger communities.


I had read something similar a few years ago, that there were very few Jews left in NI, I just remember the article talking about the ones who were left were worried there wouldn't be anyone left to burry them when they pass on


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I had read something similar a few years ago, that there were very few Jews left in NI, I just remember the article talking about the ones who were left were worried there wouldn't be anyone left to burry them when they pass on


I don't think NI has much cultural diversity, it's only just started to change in the last 5 or 6 years imho, I mean who wanted to come here during the high of the troubles. We might be part of the UK but we are very different from over the water or Ireland itself for that matter..


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I don't think NI has much cultural diversity, it's only just started to change in the last 5 or 6 years imho, I mean who wanted to come here during the high of the troubles. We might be part of the UK but we are very different from over the water or Ireland itself for that matter..


So basically the whole "why don't they pick on Jewish and Muslim bakeries" is pretty much covered


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> So basically the whole "why don't they pick on Jewish and Muslim bakeries" is pretty much covered


Yep they would be pretty hard pushed to find anything that wasn't either a Irish or Northern Irish owned bakery.. We only got a Greggs here ( big well know bakery in Britain 1,650 bakeries in England, Scotland and Wales ) in April and that's only on trial for 12 months....


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Bb


ouesi said:


> So basically the whole "why don't they pick on Jewish and Muslim bakeries" is pretty much covered


But why pick on anyone?
I have stepson in law from there. His family is very hard core protestant .

Do not see what point you score baiting those people.

While I was brought up during communist times when state tried deliberately tried to make people go against their religion.
Using quite the same methods.

Kids served meat on Friday in school canteen.

Though meat days were only twice a week. Medicine students forced to.perform abortions etc.
Kids forced to write that religion is false and lies " opium for masses".

Why any freedom and human rights fighter will follow that tradition?

Bakers were happy to sell the cake but not to write the slogan because they could not or else they sin. 
It is like forcing Sikh to take off turban or make Jew eat ham.

Take on lawyers and government..leave simple little people out of it.
More..
If you are born into certain homogenic religious community you are socially conditioned to behave and believe as they do. No choice


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> But why pick on anyone?
> I have stepson in law from there. His family is very hard core protestant .
> 
> Do not see what point you score baiting those people.
> ...


Not sure what your brother in law has to do with it at all nor his religion for that matter, you are missing the point..............

You seem to think they are targeting people, when really the point of fact is there is every little choice of where to go for a custom made cake in Northern Ireland?


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> But why pick on anyone?


I'm addressing your post where you said:


cheekyscrip said:


> If this activist does not discriminate then.shoud go to.muslim.bakery , Jewish and take them all to court.


How can they go to a Muslim and/or Jewish bakery when there are none in NI. 
The point is they're NOT "picking" on the Christians, or singling them out, they're simply challenging religious beliefs, that it happens to be Christian religious beliefs is a statement about the lack of diversity in NI, not discrimination on the part of the activists.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Why challenge religious beliefs? State should be independent from any religion and anyone should be able to marry in Register?
Point is gay marriage does not need any religious ceremonies anyhow?
It does not matter what any church think of it if it is legal.
I cannot be married in my church but could marry in register so that all which legally matter?


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> Why challenge religious beliefs?


When religious beliefs erode human freedoms and equality, they need to be challenged.
Throughout history religious beliefs have been challenged to the benefit of all of us.
If we had not challenged religious beliefs, we'd be living on a flat, 4000 year old world that is the center of the universe.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Why challenge religious beliefs? State should be independent from any religion and anyone should be able to marry in Register?
> Point is gay marriage does not need any religious ceremonies anyhow?
> It does not matter what any church think of it if it is legal.
> I cannot be married in my church but could marry in register so that all which legally matter?


Gay or not everyone has a right to equality, marriage for a straight couple isn't about religion either in most cases, you can have a religious civil partnership ceremony too.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Medicine students forced to.perform abortions etc_
That's quite a good example to show the difference between religious conviction and discrimination. If a doctor chose not to perform abortions at all because of religious conviction it would be OK. If a doctor chose to perform them on married women only or single women only or only on women under (or over) a certain age then that would be discrimination.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Do you really think that challenging people faith and making them pay fines will make them more tolerant, more understanding?

Or it only annoyed, divided and hardened attitude on both sides.
Was that a victory?

Remember the story of Wind and Sun who bet who will make traveller to take off coat?
Wind blew his hardest but man just zipped tight.

Sun smiled...smiled..
Warm and warmer.

Till bloke took off his coat.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Do you really think that challenging people faith and making them pay fines will make them more tolerant, more understanding?
> 
> Or it only annoyed, divided and hardened attitude on both sides.
> Was that a victory?
> ...


Oh right so you think in places like Northern Ireland we should just sit back and challenge nothing? Divide and harden attitudes on both sides? Again this is Northern Ireland? I for one don't want to be kept in the dark ages thank you, and I will pat anyone on the back who has the guts to challenge faith and religion in this country.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

havoc said:


> _Medicine students forced to.perform abortions etc_
> That's quite a good example to show the difference between religious conviction and discrimination. If a doctor chose not to perform abortions at all because of religious conviction it would be OK. If a doctor chose to perform them on married women only or single women only or only on women under (or over) a certain age then that would be discrimination.


Unless of course he's in Northern Ireland and it would be illegal...................


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> Do you really think that challenging people faith and making them pay fines will make them more tolerant, more understanding?
> 
> Or it only annoyed, divided and hardened attitude on both sides.
> Was that a victory?
> ...


Do you really think religion should be granted some special status that makes it unchallengeable? That sounds like an incredibly dangerous proposition to me. If we can't/shouldn't challenge religion (or any institution for that matter) we might as well roll over, give up, and die.

Both the wind and the sun challenged the traveller. The issue was not lack of challenge, but the approach.
I tend to prefer the Gandhi approach to social change myself, but I can't say that it is the more effective way looking back on history. Bottom line is humans don't accept change well - ever, regardless of how you approach it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Unless of course he's in Northern Ireland and it would be illegal................... _
And as attempts are made to change that the idea that all doctors would be forced to perform abortions if it were made legal is just the sort of misleading headline you'd see


----------



## Mrsred (Oct 23, 2013)

Well, on the UTV app (local news app) it says that Belfast City Council have voted to support gay marriage. 

I will admit my ignorance and say I don't quite know what that truly means, does it give gay marriage the green light, does it need more council poking about or is it piecemeal? The article is very vague.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> _Unless of course he's in Northern Ireland and it would be illegal................... _
> And as attempts are made to change that the idea that all doctors would be forced to perform abortions if it were made legal is just the sort of misleading headline you'd see


Under communism medicine students were forced to perform abortions ok?

State that has no regards for faith like in communism is as despicable as state forcing religious beliefs on everyone. Both equally intolerant (now in my country of origin abortion is banned soon absolutely!)....

Jesus himself preached division between state and religion!

So if you followed his teaching you end up in state respecting faith but not forcing it on anyone.
Bakers can bake you a cake and then you can take a tub of icing...ok? There are always areas where things overlap and need sensitive handling.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Under communism medicine students were forced to perform abortions ok?
> 
> State that has no regards for faith like in communism is as despicable as state forcing religious beliefs on everyone. Both equally intolerant (now in my country of origin abortion is banned soon absolutely!)....
> 
> ...


They discriminated against them, no sensitive handling needed.

Again Cheeky I'm not trying to be rude this is Northern Ireland a country who's religions has dictated EVERYTHING, and when those religions didn't get their own way they used force to try and get them, I again am glad that this went to court and for once religion wasn't allowed to dictate.










This is how those with religious beliefs dealt with the referendum in Ireland, this was sent to a prominent "Yes" campaigner. It's high time this country stood up for what it believes is right rather than what religion dictates is right.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meezey said:


> They discriminated against them, no sensitive handling needed.
> 
> Again Cheeky I'm not trying to be rude this is Northern Ireland a country who's religions has dictated EVERYTHING, and when those religions didn't get their own way they used force to try and get them, I again am glad that this went to court and for once religion wasn't allowed to dictate.
> 
> ...


Sounds just like Poland, where just now parliament rejected the idea of civil partnership...

Just that because it looks so petty and deliberate provocation...does more harm than good IMO...

If as you say there was no diversity in NI then there would be no problem?
100% happy followers of StJames Bible and Mr Lee as the only gay activist in the village.
NI is becoming more diverse and must find ways in which gay and Christians and gay n Christians and many more can coexist. 
Recent Pope personally admonished a priest who tried to exclude gay man from community and said " God made him..Who I am to judge?".

So things are moving..
But creating anger and upset is not the way.
Those bakers were brought up in their faith...With no diversity..fine them for that!
You catch bees with sugar not vinegar.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> But creating anger and upset is not the way.
> Those bakers were brought up in their faith...With no diversity..fine them for that!
> You catch bees with sugar not vinegar.


Yet that faith is used to abuse and intimidate people at family planning clinics here daily..


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Yet that faith is used to abuse and intimidate people at family planning clinics here daily..


Means their adversaries have to do the same? Higher moral grounds indeed. 
But same happens in Poland now. Sad because has nothing to do with God that is love.
Stupid people on both sides.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> State that has no regards for faith like in communism is as despicable as state forcing religious beliefs on everyone


IMO state should have no regard for faith, in that faith and government should have nothing to do with each other. 
It is not the state's role to protect *religion* but rather the state's role to protect the *people*. It seems like a subtle difference, but it is important to distinguish the ideology from the person. 
A person has rights, an ideology or religion does not. 
When we start protecting religion above people is where we run in to problems. We need to really think carefully about what it is we are protecting in these discussions, is it the right of the person or the beliefs of a religion?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Under communism medicine students were forced to perform abortions ok?_
There's been no suggestion that NI should be (or would be) turned into a communist state nor is there any suggestion of banning religion. What happened in a communist state has nothing whatsoever to do with what's happening in NI.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

havoc said:


> _Under communism medicine students were forced to perform abortions ok?_
> There's been no suggestion that NI should be (or would be) turned into a communist state nor is there any suggestion of banning religion. What happened in a communist state has nothing whatsoever to do with what's happening in NI.


Yes, and let's be very clear about that too.
A communist or totalitarian state that suppressed individual rights, bans religion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press etc., has nothing to do with a discussion about equal rights for all citizens.
It's another way to muddy the waters and make it look like it's okay to discriminate and alienate one group if your reasons are noble enough.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

People's right to their beliefs. Their religion ...cannot see how faith exists without followers?
Bakery serves people not gay rights. People eat cakes not slogans. 
Bakers were happy to bake a cake.
You would not force me to put any slogan be it in sugar which is against my beliefs.
If you refuse to put a slogan on my cake...I get icing tube and hey..presto.
I see reason for flexibility..say skull caps, hair veils, head scarves, turbans ate not part of school.uniform..which states .no head wear! But here we make exceptions for those folks.

Just makes me wonder if said activist would go in London to ask muslim bakery or Jewish bakery for same cake to proof their intolerance and take them to court.
And what in non religious state like England the ruling would be?

Remember Ian Hislop making similar remark.



Any clever lawyers?

There is also possibility that the activist will not get to court..but will be seen on missing person posters...


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

cheekyscrip said:


> Just makes me wonder if said activist would go in London to ask muslim bakery or Jewish bakery for same cake to proof their intolerance and took them to court.


Why would they need to go to London to prove any point?
Gay marriage is legal in England.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

It may be just me but I always find the argument "You wouldn't do this if they were Muslims" a bit of a diversion.

We all know that there are reasons at the moment - mostly completely unfounded - why people might be more wary of an altercation with Muslims than with Christians.

But, be that as it may, it doesn't affect the rights and wrongs of the issue, which are that bigotry based on one's own religious beliefs is still bigotry, and while the religion may advocate it, modern society doesn't.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Why would they need to go to London to prove any point?
> Gay marriage is legal in England.


Why not? Some religious groups stilldo not approve?

So you tell me that if gay marriage is legal bakers can refuse the slogan because there is no point?
Illegality of it makes it somehow valid?
Some support marriage between nearest telstives and such partnership happens between two consenting adults yet in many countries is illegal.
If you refuse slogan "support sister brother marriage" on say religious grounds..
Then court can fine you for discrimination ?
Surely they are people..love each other..
Will have their feelings hurt?

I know cases of half brothers and sisters trying to get court permission to marry..they had children etc..


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Yes, and let's be very clear about that too.
> A communist or totalitarian state that suppressed individual rights, bans religion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press etc., has nothing to do with a discussion about equal rights for all citizens.
> It's another way to muddy the waters and make it look like it's okay to discriminate and alienate one group if your reasons are noble enough.


But..if we cannot refuse a slogan then aren't we in Orwellian 1984?

For me it I not about religion at all.
It is about your right to refuse promoting what you feel.is wrong.

Not religion but conviction, opinion, belief...religious nor not.

Like badger cull though Prince Charles might want such cake.

Like legalise drugs.

Like compulsory army service.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Just makes me wonder if said activist would go in London to ask muslim bakery or Jewish bakery for same cake to proof their intolerance and take them to courts was not a Christian bakery._
I think you are determinedly missing the point that this was not a Christian bakery. They were happy to accept orders for cakes without any Christian theme. A Jewish bakery would only ever be prepared to accept orders for food prepared under their own religious tenets no matter who was asking. If a bakery was staffed by Jews but was accepting orders for non kosher food from some groups but not others then they are not a Jewish bakery and yes, they would face the same charge of discrimination.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_If you refuse slogan "support sister brother marriage" on say religious grounds..
Then court can fine you for discrimination ?_
Which protected characteristic would you claim applies here?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> _If you refuse slogan "support sister brother marriage" on say religious grounds..
> Then court can fine you for discrimination ?_
> Which protected characteristic would you claim applies here?


Some characteristcscare moreprotected than others?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Some characteristcscare moreprotected than others?


Yes. Incest is not protected at all because of the narrow definition of sexual orientation. I learned that on this thread


----------



## ameliajane (Mar 26, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> I see reason for flexibility..say skull caps, hair veils, head scarves, turbans ate not part of school.uniform..which states .no head wear! But here we make exceptions for those folks.


These are not an exceptions - these are examples of the law in action!
If people were allowed exemption from this law on grounds of belief a head teacher_ could_ ban these items purely because of their own personal beliefs.


cheekyscrip said:


> But..if we cannot refuse a slogan then aren't we in Orwellian 1984?.


If the baker were being forced to attend a rally and march about the streets chanting the slogan you might have a point.


cheekyscrip said:


> There is also possibility that the activist will not get to court..but will be seen on missing person posters...


I really hope I'm misunderstanding this bit...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Some characteristcscare moreprotected than others?_
The protected characteristics are clearly defined and have been quoted for the benefit of all earlier on this thread.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

I think continually moving the goal posts and diverting the conversation to somewhat ludicrous comparisons is just another way to distract from the issue at hand. 
The fact is, the court found the owners of the bakery to be discriminating against gays. 
The law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, thus the bakery broke the law.
It's really very simple. 
All other asides and "what ifs" don't change the law, and don't change the actions.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Last post wins 


havoc said:


> _Some characteristcscare moreprotected than others?_
> The protected characteristics are clearly defined and have been quoted for the benefit of all earlier on this thread.


Religion being on the list?
As to missing person...try cartoon prophet saying: Support gay marriage..
And find muslim bakery on certain parts of Britain..

Bakers did not refuse cake..they refused a slogan..they are not PA agency.

I still believe I would like to live in a country where I can say NO to a slogan just on principle..

I clearly remember refusing some slogans and paying the price. 
If people cannot say NO then it is step towards totalitarism?
If there are two protected characteristics from the one and only right list of such, then which of them is the more protected? If they happen to clash?
Because collision of those seem to be the root of the conflict?
Just that bakers did not seek the collision.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_If there are two protected characteristics from the one and only right list of such, then which of them is the more protected? If they happen to clash?
Because collision of those seem to be the root of the conflict?
Just that bakers did not seek the collision._
Not quite sure how to put this more simply - and yet again. There was no collision between two protected characteristics because it didn't exist in the bakery. When there is such a 'collision' there are legal guidelines in existence but they weren't necessary here.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> _If there are two protected characteristics from the one and only right list of such, then which of them is the more protected? If they happen to clash?
> Because collision of those seem to be the root of the conflict?
> Just that bakers did not seek the collision._
> Not quite sure how to put this more simply - and yet again. There was no collision between two protected characteristics because it didn't exist in the bakery. When there is such a 'collision' there are legal guidelines in existence but they weren't necessary here.


And here beg to differ..
If you are a muslim or RC or any other denomination you do not leave your hat at home. And put bakers hat on. 
This is what judge did not seem to understand..
Or I do not get it.
Jesus is not just for Christmas..at least for some.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

So you don't agree with the law. You have your opinion and the judge was bound to rule on the legal position.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Law can be very finicky..OJ Simpson found not guilty...
Yes. I think judge got it wrong this time and admit it I just IMO..
Another judge might decide otherwise still.

And I still wish I can say NO if forced against my beliefs. Religion being protects characteristic and what not.

By the way isn't it arbitrary to decide which characteristics are on the list and which are not?
What about animal rights?
Sorry for digression.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> By the way isn't it arbitrary to decide which characteristics are on the list and which are not?


Yes it is arbitrary. But having been arbitrarily decided and written into statute, it's the law. The judge has to work with the laws as they are written.

I can't imagine why you think the judge got it wrong. In which part of his judgement do you find his logic flawed? Where has he misapplied a precedent? I find his judgement unassailable but will be interested to see if the arguments in the pending appeal have any substance.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I am not a lawyer...so much of the legal lingo is lost on me I am afraid..
I see gay person not refused to be served. Only the wording baker refused as for him it meant a sin. 
Gay activist chose that bakery and that wording to make point. Baker IMO had no choice.
If Christian activist went to gay baker knowing tha the baker is gay and demanded cake with"Ban gay marriage" cake then if refused took him to court then I would blame Christian for seeking confrontation with gay baker.
Cannot put it clearer.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I am not a lawyer...so much of the legal lingo is lost on me I am afraid.._
The court case and the judgement was about the legal issues and the result was decided according to the law. You are entitled to your opinion on that law but it doesn't mean the judge was wrong.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> _I am not a lawyer...so much of the legal lingo is lost on me I am afraid.._
> The court case and the judgement was about the legal issues and the result was decided according to the law. You are entitled to your opinion on that law but it doesn't mean the judge was wrong.


Or right...this is why they appeal..


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Is a gay cake the new term for a fairy cake?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> Or right...*this is why they appeal*..


not to me


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

Meanwhile in the good old US of A, there is a petition going around for people to boycott Starbucks because the CEO made a statement at a shareholders meeting that they (the company) support marriage equality, and legislation that moves towards that. I haven't researched properly, but I think this statement was made about 2 years ago, but it's still a major issue for many Christians apparently.

The petition showed up on my newsfeed (again) this morning, 


> "To the CEO and Board of Directors of Starbucks:
> 
> I am deeply offended by your corporate position to support same-sex marriage and your decision to wage a culture war against the moral views of half your US customers and the vast majority of your international consumers. Starbucks is using its resources to invalidate traditional marriage in the US and redefine the institution of marriage despite the strongly held views of so many of its customers, including me. Therefore, I will no longer purchase anything from Starbucks until you change your corporate values to be more reflective of my own."


I won't link the petition (it's dumpstarbucks (dot) com) if anyone wants to verify, but I don't want to give them web traffic if I can avoid it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Meanwhile in the good old US of A, there is a petition going around for people to boycott Starbucks because the CEO made a statement at a shareholders meeting that they (the company) support marriage equality, and legislation that moves towards that. I haven't researched properly, but I think this statement was made about 2 years ago, but it's still a major issue for many Christians apparently.
> 
> The petition showed up on my newsfeed (again) this morning,
> 
> I won't link the petition (it's dumpstarbucks (dot) com) if anyone wants to verify, but I don't want to give them web traffic if I can avoid it.


Urrgh some people need to get a life, and well done Starbucks.....


----------

