Asher's Bakery Belfast - Lose Court Appeal Over Gay Wedding Cake.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

8 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

.. and another thing.  Nobody seems to have noticed but Bert and Ernie are actually just puppets.
If you put them in the same bed together - what exactly is it you expect to happen?

 

You should go and see Avenue Q.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

1 hour ago, mrcat1990 said:

If you start letting the state regulate opinions and beliefs where does it end? We live in a time where a joke on twitter about bombing an airport can land you in court and this case is just another example of the increasingly authoritarian times we live in. I don't wish to go full libertarian in that you can run around screaming offensive things in peoples faces, but having the government censoring or charging opinions we don't like is a dangerous game.

 

Got to say I agree. Who, exactly, should be the arbiters of what constitutes bigotry or intolerance? edit: or more to the point, what punishment, if any, should be mooted out for various behaviours where the harm caused isn't necessarily going to be clear cut and may well amount to little more than some hurt feelings?

If you hold a view, as an example, that transgender people are mentally ill and that you aren't convinced that the most effective treatment is gender reassignment surgery, or that children under X age shouldn't be given life-altering gender reassignment surgery along those lines (this is purely a hypothetical in case it starts derailing the thread!) then there are those who would seek to have you shamed, ostracized and maybe even charged as a criminal, shouting you down as being a transphobic bigot, rather than discussing if/where you are going wrong with whatever train of thought it is you are going down. In a room of 100 where 99 say that Y thing is a great, wonderful idea, the 1 dissenting voice, whether they are dissenting just by saying that they think Y thing is good but has some flaws, that they haven't decided yet and would like more information, or that they think it's an outright bad concept in all ways, is far and away the most important, otherwise the idea becomes dead dogma.

This also sprang to mind as a symptom of the race-to-the-bottom brand of progressiveness we're starting to see which I'm not convinced by:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/is-it-that-bad-to-wolf-whistle-women/story-29512449-detail/story.html

[topcat(The most tip top)]

The full judgement is available to read online
It's 5,000 words long
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Decision in Ashers Bakery Appeal/j_j_Summary of judgment - Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd 24 Oct 16.htm

 

The relevant part of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 that deals with opt-outs for Organisations relating to religion or belief is regulation 16
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/16/made


 

[DI Bruce Robertson]

Got to say I agree. Who, exactly, should be the arbiters of what constitutes bigotry or intolerance? edit: or more to the point, what punishment, if any, should be mooted out for various behaviours where the harm caused isn't necessarily going to be clear cut and may well amount to little more than some hurt feelings?

If you hold a view, as an example, that transgender people are mentally ill and that you aren't convinced that the most effective treatment is gender reassignment surgery, or that children under X age shouldn't be given life-altering gender reassignment surgery along those lines (this is purely a hypothetical in case it starts derailing the thread!) then there are those who would seek to have you shamed, ostracized and maybe even charged as a criminal, shouting you down as being a transphobic bigot, rather than discussing if/where you are going wrong with whatever train of thought it is you are going down. In a room of 100 where 99 say that Y thing is a great, wonderful idea, the 1 dissenting voice is far and away the most important, otherwise the idea becomes dead dogma.

This also sprang to mind as a symptom of the race-to-the-bottom brand of progressiveness we're starting to see which I'm not convinced by:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/is-it-that-bad-to-wolf-whistle-women/story-29512449-detail/story.html

Is it mysogyny if you wolf-whistle a baker carrying a cake with the message " Feminism rools ", this is all too confusing, what if the baker is a guy?

[welshbairn]

16 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

The full judgement is available to read online
It's 5,000 words long
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Decision in Ashers Bakery Appeal/j_j_Summary of judgment - Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd 24 Oct 16.htm

 

The relevant part of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 that deals with opt-outs for Organisations relating to religion or belief is regulation 16
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/16/made


 

Cheers, may read later. Before I do, is the judgement basically that if you decorate one cake with a political/cultural message you have to do it for everyone?

[Granny Danger]

Don't know what I'm enjoying more, the religious fuckwits stuck with a big legal bill or the seeth of the halfwits on here.  In all honesty its 50/50.

Given this judgement I hope that further people now ask for cakes with 'interesting' messages and see what the sky-fairyist does.  Hopefully he will refuse to supply them and get himself into more bother.

 

[Mark Connolly]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Don't know what I'm enjoying more, the religious fuckwits stuck with a big legal bill or the seeth of the halfwits on here.  In all honesty its 50/50.

Given this judgement I hope that further people now ask for cakes with 'interesting' messages and see what the sky-fairyist does.  Hopefully he will refuse to supply them and get himself into more bother.

 

I agree - deliberate and continued harassment of a small business owner is the only way to ensure equality for all in the modern world.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Mark Connolly said:

I agree - deliberate and continued harassment of a small business owner is the only way to ensure equality for all in the modern world.

I'm intolerant of the intolerant.  Particularly when the intolerant that I'm intolerant of are driven by a lack of rationality.

I'm less intolerant of the rational intolerant.

Of course maybe you prefer to educate.  Good luck trying to educate those who believe in the mythical; if you have any luck I'll bake you a cake.

 

[The_Kincardine]

27 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

The full judgement is available to read online
It's 5,000 words long
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Decision in Ashers Bakery Appeal/j_j_Summary of judgment - Lee v Ashers Baking Co Ltd 24 Oct 16.htm

 

The relevant part of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 that deals with opt-outs for Organisations relating to religion or belief is regulation 16
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/16/made


 

Interesting read and, going through the summary, the appellants clearly played the skyfairy card v. strongly.  I wonder how this would have panned out if they'd adopted the line, "Seeing as same sex marriage isn't recognised in NI I feel uncomfortable producing propaganda that goes against state praxis" or somesuch?

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Cheers, may read later. Before I do, is the judgement basically that if you decorate one cake with a political/cultural message you have to do it for everyone?

I don't think 'if you do one then you must do all' is the line.  From what I read, if you offer cake-writing services then you can't refuse ANY political or religious messages:

Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because that person seeks to distinguish on a basis that is prohibited between those who will receive their service and those who will not. 

So when I asked if I'd be obliged to write a pro-Brexit message on a cake were I a baker the answer is clearly 'yes' - and that is clearly fucked up.

[Mark Connolly]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I'm intolerant of the intolerant.  Particularly when the intolerant that I'm intolerant of are driven by a lack of rationality.

I'm less intolerant of the rational intolerant.

Of course maybe you prefer to educate.  Good luck trying to educate those who believe in the mythical; if you have any luck I'll bake you a cake.

 

I would suggest that your approach would be counter-productive, since it would make "the intolerant" into a victim, especially in the eyes of those with the same viewpoint, thus strengthening their resolve, rather than changing their mind. I'd also suggest that the act of bullying a single small business owner rather than continuing to approach the wider picture may be seen as a lack of rationality.

Please ice the cake with the following wording: "I, Granny Danger, accept the existence of God, and defer to His believers".

[mrcat1990]

I'm intolerant of the intolerant.  Particularly when the intolerant that I'm intolerant of are driven by a lack of rationality.

I'm less intolerant of the rational intolerant.

Of course maybe you prefer to educate.  Good luck trying to educate those who believe in the mythical; if you have any luck I'll bake you a cake.

 

I vaguely remember you trotting out a line that went along like "in a civilised free speech doesn't truly exist" so I'm unsurprised to see you go full whack with your authoritarian morals.

[WaffenThinMint]

4 hours ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

so, for example, you would "tolerate in practice" homophobia, religious bigotry, Holocaust denial, etc?

what does that even mean?

Nice try.

No real surprise you didn't understand that one - Buckled Lefties do tend to have as much difficulty as the Nazi cheek of the same arse when it comes to understanding plurality, largely because hivemind is the only mind acceptable to those wanting to live the "1984" wet dream.

Tolerance in practice means accepting not everyone is going to like what you like, think the same way, etc; not attempting to force people to accept it, especially by downright coercion. It's what grown ups have largely managed to do for centuries (bar occasional series of theological & political madness when millions died for not obeying the hivemind) - or at least they did until lawyers saw it as a brand new money making opportunity.

Those societies that have allowed their citizens the maximum capacity to "agreed to disagree" have proven to be the most stable and successful. Those where they try to impose on their citizenry how to think and act have invariably proven to be disasters as it comes back to bite them time and time again.

Some business doesn't want to bake you a cake because you want a "Support Gay Marriage"/"John McVeigh Is A Tit"/"I Licked Throbber's Crusty Sock" message on it? Fine - go to another baker, it's the free market after all.

Or perhaps get out the recipe book, learn how to do it yourself like a grown up and man the f**k up about your "hurt feelings".

[doulikefish]

Some of our failed statelet posters should take a trip to this bakery and see if they can buy fairy cakes

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Cheers, may read later. Before I do, is the judgement basically that if you decorate one cake with a political/cultural message you have to do it for everyone?

I've only skimmed it myself to be honest and I dropped out of Law School a long time ago so I'm sure others will be able to elucidate better than I

but with that disclaimer

The fact that exceptions for "strong religious beliefs" are excluded for commercial organisations in the legislation ran against the bakery and as the judgement pointed out it's not as if the framers of the legislation would be unaware that individuals with strong religious belief exist so they can't interpret the lack of special provision for such individuals as accidental.

The guest house case in England seems to have been a relevant precedent I'm not sure how bound they felt by it and I'm writing this on my phone so I'm not going to check. Maybe someone else who knows more about NI law will

Attempts to get the freedom of expression part of the ECHR to cover this seem to have been rejected because making a cake for someone else, paid for by that person and with a message chosen by that other person isn't actually an expression of the message by the baker.

I'm writing from memory and on a small screen so apologies if I've got any of this wrong but I think I got the gist of it

[NotThePars]

Always good to have WTM's absolutely mental viewpoint on proceedings. 

[supermik]

Will that ruling now compel a vegetarian restaurant to cook a t-bone steak?

[Granny Danger]

23 minutes ago, mrcat1990 said:

 

I vaguely remember you trotting out a line that went along like "in a civilised free speech doesn't truly exist" so I'm unsurprised to see you go full whack with your authoritarian morals.

 

No you don't.  You're making it up.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I don't think 'if you do one then you must do all' is the line.  From what I read, if you offer cake-writing services then you can't refuse ANY political or religious messages:

Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because that person seeks to distinguish on a basis that is prohibited between those who will receive their service and those who will not. 

So when I asked if I'd be obliged to write a pro-Brexit message on a cake were I a baker the answer is clearly 'yes' - and that is clearly fucked up.

Discriminating against people for being pro-Brexit isn't covered by equality legislation. It may yet become treasonous but that's another thing

If you'd previously made pro-Brexit cakes for straight men but didn't want to make them for David Coburn then you could be in trouble

[WaffenThinMint]

Have just checked on Asher Baking's website which caused all the trouble in the first place.

http://buildacake.co/basket.htm

They are prepared to make a John McVeigh Is A Tit cake, with either Smarties or a Flake topping.

Thought I'd clarify that one.

[pandarilla]

I'm intolerant of the intolerant.  Particularly when the intolerant that I'm intolerant of are driven by a lack of rationality.

I'm less intolerant of the rational intolerant.

Of course maybe you prefer to educate.  Good luck trying to educate those who believe in the mythical; if you have any luck I'll bake you a cake.

 

So would you be OK with a bnp cake, slogans and all?

I know this has been asked already but unless I'm mistaken I don't think you've answered it.