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

[The_Kincardine]

25 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

"Nice evasion...so "tolerance in practice" means freedom for Holocaust deniers, bigots and homphobes to spew their bile.

No evasion - you simply weren't paying attention, as the tunnel visioned are wont to do, not reading what was said & merely looking to cherry-pick parts in order to pick holes.

Tolerance in practice means allowing those with contentious views to put them to the crucible of the public at large - & be ripped to pieces accordingly if their evidence for their premises are poorly argued. See the destroyed academic career of David Irving for full details, now reduced to hawking his crappy books around WW2 reenactor events because he's such a laughing stock. See equally what happened to Nick Griffin on Question Time, a moment from which the BNP never recovered - in your world there would have been "no platform" & the BNP may still have been a considerable nuisance.

"I'm perfectly tolerant of others views so long as it is reciprocated."

Define what you mean by reciprocation? One person's reciprocation is another's intolerance - which brings us full circle on the matter of tolerating in a pluralist society that not everyone thinks the same.

"The rest of your post is just mad, and the views that I am supposed to hold don't exist except in your own head. "

Um, you've just admitted over several posts to several different that you want to stamp all over anyone daring to so much as think something you don't like. Mmmm, sure looks like someone wanting to live in the Orwellian "1984" society where "thought crime" was punishable by the full wrath of the state!

"You come across as a very poorly socialised, lonely indivdual with deep seated anger issues. I expect you feel that your greatness isn't recognised at work."

At least I DO work, champ, rather than spending most of my time ranting on a football at how "bigoted" the rest of the world is for not holding to your brittle little world view.

I'm not sure what thread you thought you'd dump this dross in.  it certainly doesn't belong here.

[NotThePars]

I'm not sure what thread you thought you'd dump this dross in.  it certainly doesn't belong here.

I'm definitely impressed by the numerous Orwell references, however.

[EdgarusQPFC]

On 24/10/2016 at 15:11, RedRob72 said:

 

Appeal lost and £88,000 anticipated in Court Costs.

Is this a breach of the owners religious rights (and Christian beliefs) or did the Judge rule correctly in that baking a cake for a same sex couple wasn't an endorsement of their sexual preferences and lifestyle.

Was the intention to purposefully target the shop to challenge their stance in the first place?

What says P&B?

 

While I understand that the people say they refused on the grounds of religion, they could just as easily be bigots hiding behind their religion. 

Personally I really don't give a f**k about religion so that will affect my opinion on this, but I say just make the cake and get on with it. Would have saved them alot of time and money

[Peppino Impastato]

Or the couple could have just gone to another baker's.  I assume there's more than one in Belfast.

[EdgarusQPFC]

36 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Or the couple could have just gone to another baker's.  I assume there's more than one in Belfast.

But they refused to do business with the couple due to their Religion. Just read a Guardian article, apparently the cake was to have a picture of Bert and Earnie from the muppets on it doing nothing and a logo for a organization called "Queerspace" Nothing described is offensive, if the desired cake was vulgar I would understand but from what was described I honestly don't see a issue

[banana]

7 hours ago, Jambomo said:

 

Yes, unless you have reason to believe the content illegal in someway, that you'd be breaking the law by doing so (likewise in this case, of the cake would in some way be illegal or making them break the law by doing so then that is a different case).

We will all come up against things at times we dislike or actively offend what we think is right, but you have to be able to cope with these things in life. You are not being asked to believe in what you are publishing or to support it - it is simply providing the service equally as you advertise.

One example is that I used to work in a public library and we had a collection of Ron L Hubbard Scientology books. Some people argued with us that we shouldn't have them in the library, others dislikes that we classified them as religion and not science. I don't agree at all with Scientology, I think it is a brainwashing scheme designed to prey on poor people who are vulnerable and part them with their cash or worse.

The bottom line though is that we aren't censors, people wanted to read them so we had them in stock. Our personal beliefs weren't relevant, we provided the service that people wanted.

Interesting story, but a brutal false equivalence.

The services of creation and of lending are completely different species. Private business and government are completely different species. You were not the owner of those books and as such should not be hiding the books from the public who want access to them. The cake shop owners are owners of their shop, their stock, and their services and as such should not be forbidden from refusing service to individual customers based on what they've been asked to create.

[The DA]

2 hours ago, banana said:

Interesting story, but a brutal false equivalence.

The services of creation and of lending are completely different species. Private business and government are completely different species. You were not the owner of those books and as such should not be hiding the books from the public who want access to them. The cake shop owners are owners of their shop, their stock, and their services and as such should not be forbidden from refusing service to individual customers based on what they've been asked to create.

That's an interesting take on it.  Imagine the couple had approached a TV programme maker and asked her to direct a documentary promoting gay marriage.  Would she be justified in turning the commission down on the grounds that she didn't agree with the message?

Something tells me the TV bod might end up in court, too, but I suspect they turn commissions down all the time and don't have to explain their reasoning.

 

[Ross.]

15 hours ago, MikeandSheila said:

 

 

Didn't quite work for Farage.

 

 

Mostly because a large section of the media didn't call him out for what he was. That is another issue altogether.

[banana]

1 hour ago, The DA said:

That's an interesting take on it.  Imagine the couple had approached a TV programme maker and asked her to direct a documentary promoting gay marriage.  Would she be justified in turning the commission down on the grounds that she didn't agree with the message?

Something tells me the TV bod might end up in court, too, but I suspect they turn commissions down all the time and don't have to explain their reasoning.

Right.

If a shop that stocks pre-made cakes refused to sell one of those cakes to someone on the basis that the customer is gay, then we're into sketchy territory. But that's not what happened, the sticking point was the content of what was being created. This additional aspect of creation is important.

The larger point is that this story is just another example of the grievance/victimhood/entitlement industry being fueled by 'Progressive' doctrine among other things.

[Jambomo]

Interesting story, but a brutal false equivalence.

The services of creation and of lending are completely different species. Private business and government are completely different species. You were not the owner of those books and as such should not be hiding the books from the public who want access to them. The cake shop owners are owners of their shop, their stock, and their services and as such should not be forbidden from refusing service to individual customers based on what they've been asked to create.

My post wasn't intended as an equivalent scenario, just an illustration of the case that sometimes your own beliefs don't come into it and you just have to get on with it.

[banana]

29 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

My post wasn't intended as an equivalent scenario, just an illustration of the case that sometimes your own beliefs don't come into it and you just have to get on with it.

And that applies differently in the case of a librarian working in a government service with pre-made stock, compared to a business owner working privately with ad-hoc creations.

The bold bit should be told to the 'victims' demanding someone else bake them a cake, e.g. find another baker, bake your own cake.

[Jambomo]

20 minutes ago, banana said:

And that applies differently in the case of a librarian working in a government service with pre-made stock, compared to a business owner working privately with ad-hoc creations.

The bold bit should be told to the 'victims' demanding someone else bake them a cake, e.g. find another baker, bake your own cake.

Whilst I agree it is a different case, I think you make too much out of the creation distinction. If you agree to make a customer a cake then you are entering into a contract of service with them, they are commissioning a cake from you. At this point you are already accepting that your creative freedom is being restricted to what your client wants, i.e if they wanted a football cake they can't just produce them a rugby ball cake.

Its not the same as making a cake for yourself or painting a picture which represents you and your thoughts, or the story you want to tell with it. You are now simply a service provider.

I agree that in the everyday life, it is better not to oblige people to do things they are not comfortable with and I especially disagree with people going out of their way to offend or make people do things they are uncomfortable with. I think that the couple would have been better finding somewhere else to have the cake made, then they would be directing their money better and stick to letting people know what happened on social media.

The law can't be like that though. Withdrawal of or refusing access to services is one of the most frequently used methods of discrimination, in both the past and in the modern time. The law shouldn't distinguish between one persons withdrawing service based on religious belief and another persons withdrawing them on the basis of hatred of ideology or group of people. Would we want to say that religious beliefs have some weight or precedence in law?

[banana]

1 hour ago, Jambomo said:

Whilst I agree it is a different case, I think you make too much out of the creation distinction. If you agree to make a customer a cake then you are entering into a contract of service with them, they are commissioning a cake from you. At this point you are already accepting that your creative freedom is being restricted to what your client wants, i.e if they wanted a football cake they can't just produce them a rugby ball cake.

No, you're putting the cart before the horse. The agreement to make the cake is subject to what's going on it. The agreement for me to create a new website is subject to (among other things) what is going on it - noone has the right other than inside their entitled heads to demand I as a private business owner go through with the project, to dictate that my labour for the next X hours/days goes into bowing to their wishes.

[Alan Stubbs]

Not sure about WTM slagging people off for spending too much time on P&B when his posts average about 3,000 words.

[Jambomo]

1 hour ago, banana said:

No, you're putting the cart before the horse. The agreement to make the cake is subject to what's going on it. The agreement for me to create a new website is subject to (among other things) what is going on it - noone has the right other than inside their entitled heads to demand I as a private business owner go through with the project, to dictate that my labour for the next X hours/days goes into bowing to their wishes.

I disagree, it is not always the case that the agreement to produce any good is subject to what it is going to be or in this case what was going on it. Indeed, one of the central points as pointed out in this case was that they had agreed to make it before cancelling the order when they learned of what was going on it.

[Jacksgranda]

13 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Or the couple could have just gone to another baker's.  I assume there's more than one in Belfast.

Depends what colour they wanted the icing. Green or orange would be no problem. Not sure about pink.

[Bishop Briggs]

Do Protestant Paramilitaries now have the right to require Republican bakers to produce cakes with anti-IRA slogans?

[ICTChris]

I'm worried about the explosion in diabetes that's going to result from all this tit-for-tat cake making.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Do Protestant Paramilitaries now have the right to require Republican bakers to produce cakes with anti-IRA slogans?

As far as I can see yes but only if those republican bakers are happy to produce pro-IRA Cakes.

For that matter what better Tribute to Bobby Sands could there be

[The_Kincardine]

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

As far as I can see yes but only if those republican bakers are happy to produce pro-IRA Cakes.

For that matter what better Tribute to Bobby Sands could there be

Served on a hunger strike commemorative plate?