Full rights for the LGBT community.

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You are being silly now

How would the bank know a persons religion or sexual preferences, and what would a customer request from a bank that would promote their religion or sexual preferences ?

But in this case a LGBT organisation want a bakery that they know does not agree with same sex marriage to bake a cake that promotes same sex marriage

Why did the LGBT organisation not go to another bakery to get their cake baked ?

No it is you who is being silly ,and the fact that you can't see it is what is surprising.

If a company wishes to provide a service to the public it must do so to all the public , that is the beginning and the end of it.

Individuals have no obligation to shop around to find a vendor that doesn't have a problem with them

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You are being silly now

How would the bank know a persons religion or sexual preferences, and what would a customer request from a bank that would promote their religion or sexual preferences ?

But in this case a LGBT organisation want a bakery that they know does not agree with same sex marriage to bake a cake that promotes same sex marriage

Why did the LGBT organisation not go to another bakery to get their cake baked ?

In a society in the North a bank or more importantly, a manager or loan committee would easily know somebodies religion or politics. That's why there is so much equality legislation in the North, and still stuff happens.

Tbh I'm not sure on this one.

gizmo555

marienbad wrote: »

If a company wishes to provide a service to the public it must do so to all the public , that is the beginning and the end of it.

Individuals have no obligation to shop around to find a vendor that doesn't have a problem with them

Suppose in the days when the Bretzel Bakery in Dublin was still run by observant Jews as a kosher bakery, you asked them to make you sausage rolls. Would they have had an obligation to do so?

It seems to me that many in the pro-gay marriage campaign take the view that anyone who is opposed is by definition an intolerant, homophobic bigot. Now, whether this view is right or wrong is actually beside the point.

The point is that, ultimately the people will decide this issue. A lot of voters who would otherwise be sympathetic will be put off by the dogmatic insistence of many pro campaigners that in effect it isn't possible to conscientiously and in good faith disagree with them.

If the referendum isn't passed, which in my view is much more likely than the opinion polls might suggest, it will be because of this unwillingness to engage with and persuade the voters.

marienbad

gizmo555 wrote: »

Suppose in the days when the Bretzel Bakery in Dublin was still run by observant Jews as a kosher bakery, you asked them to make you sausage rolls. Would they have had an obligation to do so?

It seems to me that many in the pro-gay marriage campaign take the view that anyone who is opposed is by definition an intolerant, homophobic bigot. Now, whether this view is right or wrong is actually beside the point.

The point is that, ultimately the people will decide this issue. A lot of voters who would otherwise be sympathetic will be put off by the dogmatic insistence of many pro campaigners that in effect it isn't possible to conscientiously and in good faith disagree with them.

If the referendum isn't passed, which in my view is much more likely than the opinion polls might suggest, it will be because will be because of this unwillingness to engage with and persuade the voters.

would you say the same if a service was refused to someone because of their race ?

Hold whatever views you want privately , but once a service interacts with the public it is society's rules and not pick and choose your own views .

gizmo555

marienbad wrote: »

would you say the same if a service was refused to someone because of their race ?

Service wasn't refused by Ashers because of the sexual orientation of the people requesting it. In fact, Ashers would have had no way of knowing what their sexual orientation is. (Obviously, a great many straight people support gay marriage and there is equally obviously no possibility of the referendum being passed without that support.)

Ashers' position is that in accordance with their religious beliefs they don't provide the service of producing pro-gay marriage materials for anyone, straight or gay, black or white. That's why they refused to make the cake.

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

would you say the same if a service was refused to someone because of their race ?

Hold whatever views you want privately , but once a service interacts with the public it is society's rules and not pick and choose your own views .

That may certainly be the case, especially in NI, but I'll ask again

"Why did the LGBT organisation not go to another bakery to get their cake baked ? "

marienbad

gizmo555 wrote: »

Service wasn't refused by Ashers because of the sexual orientation of the people requesting it. In fact, Ashers would have had no way of knowing what their sexual orientation is. (Obviously, a great many straight people support gay marriage and there is equally obviously no possibility of the referendum being passed without that support.)

Ashers' position is that in accordance with their religious beliefs they don't provide the service of producing pro-gay marriage materials for anyone, straight or gay, black or white. That's why they refused to make the cake.

Same thing, just switch from orientation to race , if someone wanted a cake promoting equality before the law for the Chinese community ,would you have a problem ?

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That may certainly be the case, especially in NI, but I'll ask again

"Why did the LGBT organisation not go to another bakery to get their cake baked ? "

And I will ask you right back - why should they ? You seem to be missing this fundamental point ?

gizmo555

marienbad wrote: »

Same thing, just switch from orientation to race , if someone wanted a cake promoting equality before the law for the Chinese community ,would you have a problem ?

It's not the same thing. The campaigners weren't discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, or their race.

Your arguments are in fact a perfect example of the attitude I described. You're effectively denying that it's possible in good faith and conscience to vote no in the referendum. The anti campaign would be delighted with you.

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

And I will ask you right back - why should they ? You seem to be missing this fundamental point ?

Ok I'll answer the question for you seeing as you seem incapable of answering it yourself.

They went to Ashers because they knew that it would be refused and they could go to the equality commission and grand stand about it.

They did it to bully and embarrass a business because that business did not agree with their views.

I'm an egalitarian, and would be voting yes if I had the option.

However, I don't believe that the bakery should be compelled to offer the service.

Flip the table, a "Traditional Marriage" supporter walks into your printing business and asks you to print an A1 poster supporting his viewpoint that he wants to display outside his home. Of course, you could choose ignore your own political views and choose to print the poster for the customer, but you're asking that the law compels you to do so instead of being afforded and trusted with the choice in the matter.

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ok I'll answer the question for you seeing as you seem incapable of answering it yourself.

They went to Ashers because they knew that it would be refused and they could go to the equality commission and grand stand about it.

They did it to bully and embarrass a business because that business did not agree with their views.

I understand all that , but you seem to think it makes a difference - it doesn't. If you are a business providing a service ,then you must do so to all the public equally . If a request is within the law and is in your service area then that's all there is to it.

Would you accept a Fianna Fail family owned printing company refuse to print campaign literature for SF or FG ? It is exactly the same

Why is that so difficult to accept ? That fact that the company was targeted is irrelevant .

Long after they were made illegal separate drinking fountains persisted in the southern states in the US - it is exactly the same thing.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian, and would be voting yes if I had the option.

However, I don't believe that the bakery should be compelled to offer the service.

Flip the table, a "Traditional Marriage" supporter walks into your printing business and asks you to print an A1 poster supporting his viewpoint that he wants to display outside his home. Of course, you could choose ignore your own political views and choose to print the poster for the customer, but you're asking that the law compels you to do so instead of being afforded and trusted with the choice in the matter.

and the law would be right to compel you to print that poster. You have no choice in the matter - you are a business, not a social campaigner .

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

and the law would be right to compel you to print that poster. You have no choice in the matter - you are a business, not a social campaigner .

That's what you'd prefer, but I'm not sure that's the law is it?

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

I understand all that , but you seem to think it makes a difference - it doesn't. If you are a business providing a service ,then you must do so to all the public equally . If a request is within the law and is in your service area then that's all there is to it.

Would you accept a Fianna Fail family owned printing company refuse to print campaign literature for SF or FG ? It is exactly the same

Why is that so difficult to accept ? That fact that the company was targeted is irrelevant .

Long after they were made illegal separate drinking fountains persisted in the southern states in the US - it is exactly the same thing.

The fact that the company was targeted is not irrelevant.

As I said in my first post on this, it's this sort of 'targeting' by the LGBT community that makes me veer to the No side of any same sex marriage vote.
Why was the company targeted ?
So that the LGBT community could make a song and a dance about this, and bully Ashers.

There was no need for the LGBT group involved here to go to Ashers to get their cake, just like there is no need for me to go to a FF printer to get my FG posters printers, unless of course I want to antagonize and bully that FF printer.

NuMarvel

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian, and would be voting yes if I had the option.

However, I don't believe that the bakery should be compelled to offer the service.

Flip the table, a "Traditional Marriage" supporter walks into your printing business and asks you to print an A1 poster supporting his viewpoint that he wants to display outside his home. Of course, you could choose ignore your own political views and choose to print the poster for the customer, but you're asking that the law compels you to do so instead of being afforded and trusted with the choice in the matter.

In the North, anti-discrimination laws also prevent discrimination on the basis of political opinion. That applies to all political opinion, not just nationalist or unionist opinion. In the example you've given, the printer probably would be obliged to print the poster.

If it was in the Republic, it might be a bit more of a grey area. There isn't provision in our equality legislation for political opinion. But something like traditional marriage could be seen as a religious belief which is protected under equality legislation, so a case could be made. If the customer wanted something like "Jesus believes in traditional marriage", I think it would be more difficult to justify a refusal.

NuMarvel

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The fact that the company was targeted is not irrelevant.

As I said in my first post on this, it's this sort of 'targeting' by the LGBT community that makes me veer to the No side of any same sex marriage vote.
Why was the company targeted ?
So that the LGBT community could make a song and a dance about this, and bully Ashers.

There was no need for the LGBT group involved here to go to Ashers to get their cake, just like there is no need for me to go to a FF printer to get my FG posters printers, unless of course I want to antagonize and bully that FF printer.

There's nothing to indicate the bakery was targeted. It was the bakery that went to the media, not the customer, and that was months after the refusal. If the bakery had said nothing about this, it's likely we'd be none the wiser about the whole thing.

Fr Tod Umptious

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's nothing to indicate the bakery was targeted. It was the bakery that went to the media, not the customer, and that was months after the refusal. If the bakery had said nothing about this, it's likely we'd be none the wiser about the whole thing.

Do you have a source for that ?

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

In the North, anti-discrimination laws also prevent discrimination on the basis of political opinion. That applies to all political opinion, not just nationalist or unionist opinion. In the example you've given, the printer probably would be obliged to print the poster.

If it was in the Republic, it might be a bit more of a grey area. There isn't provision in our equality legislation for political opinion. But something like traditional marriage could be seen as a religious belief which is protected under equality legislation, so a case could be made. If the customer wanted something like "Jesus believes in traditional marriage", I think it would be more difficult to justify a refusal.

I think this is the order in question
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1998/3162/article/28/made

Lets consider a third scenario. The printing company receive an order via e-mail with the theoretical slogan (from earlier post) and a request for a quotation.

Are they under obligation to print that poster? Does the law compel them to fulfill every order? Does the law even compel them to reply with a quotation?

Nodin

gizmo555 wrote: »

Suppose in the days when the Bretzel Bakery in Dublin was still run by observant Jews as a kosher bakery, ............

Just as a side note, its still a kosher bakery.

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The fact that the company was targeted is not irrelevant.

As I said in my first post on this, it's this sort of 'targeting' by the LGBT community that makes me veer to the No side of any same sex marriage vote.
Why was the company targeted ?
So that the LGBT community could make a song and a dance about this, and bully Ashers.

There was no need for the LGBT group involved here to go to Ashers to get their cake, just like there is no need for me to go to a FF printer to get my FG posters printers, unless of course I want to antagonize and bully that FF printer.

The company I presume was targeted because they were known to discriminate in the public sphere . So what ? That is how all inequality should be confronted .

Why do you have a problem with this ? It is no different than the B&B in the UK some months back refusing to give a room to a gay couple .

There is every need for you to go to that FF printer or do you not accept that the law must be applied equally across the board ?

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

The company I presume was targeted because they were known to discriminate in the public sphere . So what ? That is how all inequality should be confronted .

Why do you have a problem with this ? It is no different than the B&B in the UK some months back refusing to give a room to a gay couple .

There is every need for you to go to that FF printer or do you not accept that the law must be applied equally across the board ?

Do you know that Ashers discriminate in the public sphere or are you just assuming they do ?

Rather than going to the FF printer I'd prefer to use common sense and go to a printer that will print my stuff without the hassle of bringing the law into it.

Just like I go to the gym a bit further away than trying to get into Curves, which I know excludes me because of my gender.

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Do you know that Ashers discriminate in the public sphere or are you just assuming they do ?

Rather than going to the FF printer I'd prefer to use common sense and go to a printer that will print my stuff without the hassle of bringing the law into it.

Just like I go to the gym a bit further away than trying to get into Curves, which I know excludes me because of my gender.

Of course they discriminated in the public sphere ! The are a registered company ! They refused a legitimate order on the basis that they did not agree with the sentiment .

Common sense has nothing to do with it - it is the law and must be applied equally. In the same way if an atheist cake shop was asked for a cake saying God is good they must supply it.

It can't be an a la carte menu - otherwise we would have hotels refusing the Traveller community , B&B's with their 'no Irish or ...... need apply and on and on .

On the gym issue I don't know that works or how they get an exemption , but if it is on the same basis as male only golf clubs I would definitely have a problem

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

Common sense has nothing to do with it - it is the law and must be applied equally. In the same way if an atheist cake shop was asked for a cake saying God is good they must supply it.

Again, do they? I don't believe that they are compelled to fulfill any order.

What if I asked for a cake with "Your mother's got a Penis" (GLC) on it? What law could I use to demand that the baker fulfill my order?

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, do they? I don't believe that they are compelled to fulfill any order.

What if I asked for a cake with "Your mother's got a Penis" (GLC) on it? What law could I use to demand that the baker fulfill my order?

As far as I know you cannot refuse an order solely on the basis of race creed gender etc and it was on that basis that they refused the order - that is what made it incorrect .

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

Of course they discriminated in the public sphere ! The are a registered company ! They refused a legitimate order on the basis that they did not agree with the sentiment .

Common sense has nothing to do with it - it is the law and must be applied equally. In the same way if an atheist cake shop was asked for a cake saying God is good they must supply it.

It can't be an a la carte menu - otherwise we would have hotels refusing the Traveller community , B&B's with their 'no Irish or ...... need apply and on and on .

On the gym issue I don't know that works or how they get an exemption , but if it is on the same basis as male only golf clubs I would definitely have a problem

I'm going to get all pedantic on you now whether you like it or not.

You said "The company I presume was targeted because they were known to discriminate in the public sphere"

I asked "Do you know that Ashers discriminate in the public sphere or are you just assuming they do ?"

Your reply was "Of course they discriminated in the public sphere ! The are a registered company ! They refused a legitimate order on the basis that they did not agree with the sentiment"

So you said that they were targeting by the LGBT group with the cake because they were known to discriminate, and the evidence that you give for this discrimination is the incident with the LGBT cake.

Try harder

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I know you cannot refuse an order solely on the basis of race creed gender etc and it was on that basis that they refused the order - that is what made it incorrect .

And I agree totally with this, it's an important part of the foundation for equality.

However, there's an important but subtle difference between your second sentence above and your previous

marienbad wrote:

They refused a legitimate order on the basis that they did not agree with the sentiment

There's nothing illegal or wrong with this imo. If they can/did (I'm not hugely familiar with the situation) show that they were happy to offer them another cake, but not with the slogan / image / whatever that was originally requested, then they are not refusing an order based on the race/gender/sexuality of the customer.

gizmo555

Deleted User wrote: »

There's nothing illegal or wrong with this imo. If they can/did (I'm not hugely familiar with the situation) show that they were happy to offer them another cake, but not with the slogan / image / whatever that was originally requested, then they are not refusing an order based on the race/gender/sexuality of the customer.

This has already been explained, but the explanation was ignored . . .

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm going to get all pedantic on you now whether you like it or not.

You said "The company I presume was targeted because they were known to discriminate in the public sphere"

I asked "Do you know that Ashers discriminate in the public sphere or are you just assuming they do ?"

Your reply was "Of course they discriminated in the public sphere ! The are a registered company ! They refused a legitimate order on the basis that they did not agree with the sentiment"

So you said that they were targeting by the LGBT group with the cake because they were known to discriminate, and the evidence that you give for this discrimination is the incident with the LGBT cake.

Try harder

I don't mind you getting pedantic at all, once we start discussing fringe cases like this it can appear that we are all pedantic, but there is an underlying principle in play.

I don't know too much on the details of the case , but for argument sake let us say you are correct , so what ?

That is how loads of legislation is rolled out - the specific law is passed and then we see specific court cases to test its limits and ensure it is fairly applied .

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

And I agree totally with this, it's an important part of the foundation for equality.

However, there's an important but subtle difference between your second sentence above and your previous



There's nothing illegal or wrong with this imo. If they can/did (I'm not hugely familiar with the situation) show that they were happy to offer them another cake, but not with the slogan / image / whatever that was originally requested, then they are not refusing an order based on the race/gender/sexuality of the customer.

The relevant Authority disagreed

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I know you cannot refuse an order solely on the basis of race creed gender etc and it was on that basis that they refused the order - that is what made it incorrect .

marienbad wrote: »

The relevant Authority disagreed

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gay-marriage-cake-row-christian-bakery-ashers-told-to-pay-compensation-or-face-legal-action-30723562.html


A couple of points to note based on the attached article:

(1) The alleged discrimination wasn't based on race, creed or gender, it was based on political opinion.

This is an option not available under Irish law. I think it unlikely that a case such as this would succeed under Irish law. I am in favour of gay marraige but I am heterosexual. If I or anyone else (a LGBT person) was refused a cake with that slogan, there would be no breach of Irish law because the cake is being refused no matter what my sexual orientation is. There is a possibility of indirect discrimination but that is much harder to prove.

It remains to be seen whether it is against NI law. Is being against gay marraige a political or a religious opinion? If, for example, you could find people of different political persuasions for and against gay marraige, then the bakery may have a good defence as the religious view on the issue is absolute.

(2) No finding has been made against the bakery, all that has happened is that the NI equivalent of the Equality Authority has threatened to take a case. The Equality Authority in Ireland has also taken cases from time to time, like everyone else, it wins some but it also loses some. There has been no finding therefore against the bakery.

(3) Section 28 of the relevant NI legislation is interesting:

"28. (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—

(a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person so seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section."

The bakery is not in breach of Section 28 (1) (a) as it is willing to provide a non-sloganised cake. It may also not be in breach of Section 28 (1) (b) as it could argue that the cake is unique and an alternative of equal quality is being offered.

This could be very interesting if it goes to Court as it touches on a number of competing rights. The right to equality claimed by LGBT, the right to freely practice religion, the right to freedom to carry out your own business, etc. It will be worth following if it goes to a hearing.

hfallada

I think the American explanation of where a bakery can refuse a cake on the grounds of "their religion" is best.If its a limited company, the owners agree that their business is a separate legal entity. That if they die, the business still keeps going. The business is taxed as a business and not as a individual. You can only sue the business for its debts and not that of its owner.

A limited company cant have "values" or the right to discriminate to LGBT people, as the business isnt an individual, but a separate body. It isnt treated like a person in the court of law. Then why should the owners decide when they like that the business has values

NuMarvel

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Do you have a source for that ?

That's the timeline. The letter the bakery received says the cake order was accepted and paid for on 9th May, and then refused on 11th May. At some point after that, the customer went to the Equality Commission, who in turn wrote to the bakery on 26th June.

Media coverage of this started about 10 days later, on the 7th/8th July. This is a day after the bakery published a statement on their website, and the Christian Institute released their first video.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is the order in question
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1998/3162/article/28/made

Lets consider a third scenario. The printing company receive an order via e-mail with the theoretical slogan (from earlier post) and a request for a quotation.

Are they under obligation to print that poster? Does the law compel them to fulfill every order? Does the law even compel them to reply with a quotation?

They're not obliged to fulfil every order. What the law says is their reasons for not doing so can't be discrimination, as defined in the law. For example a printer refusing an order because they were too busy and would get more money doing other work, should be fine.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gay-marriage-cake-row-christian-bakery-ashers-told-to-pay-compensation-or-face-legal-action-30723562.html


A couple of points to note based on the attached article:

(1) The alleged discrimination wasn't based on race, creed or gender, it was based on political opinion.

This is an option not available under Irish law. I think it unlikely that a case such as this would succeed under Irish law. I am in favour of gay marraige but I am heterosexual. If I or anyone else (a LGBT person) was refused a cake with that slogan, there would be no breach of Irish law because the cake is being refused no matter what my sexual orientation is. There is a possibility of indirect discrimination but that is much harder to prove.

It remains to be seen whether it is against NI law. Is being against gay marraige a political or a religious opinion? If, for example, you could find people of different political persuasions for and against gay marraige, then the bakery may have a good defence as the religious view on the issue is absolute.

(2) No finding has been made against the bakery, all that has happened is that the NI equivalent of the Equality Authority has threatened to take a case. The Equality Authority in Ireland has also taken cases from time to time, like everyone else, it wins some but it also loses some. There has been no finding therefore against the bakery.

(3) Section 28 of the relevant NI legislation is interesting:

"28. (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—

(a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person so seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section."

The bakery is not in breach of Section 28 (1) (a) as it is willing to provide a non-sloganised cake. It may also not be in breach of Section 28 (1) (b) as it could argue that the cake is unique and an alternative of equal quality is being offered.

This could be very interesting if it goes to Court as it touches on a number of competing rights. The right to equality claimed by LGBT, the right to freely practice religion, the right to freedom to carry out your own business, etc. It will be worth following if it goes to a hearing.

I am not saying anything different to the above , though I think in NI political opinion is also covered for historical reasons .

I think the equality authority is going to win this easily enough and I would hope they would win it down here also , no matter how it is cloaked it is based on sexual orientation .

Freedom of religion doesn't of shouldn't apply to a business . You can bake all the cakes you want or not as a private individual . It changes when you stop being an individual. It should go the same way as the B&B in the UK.

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

I am not saying anything different to the above , though I think in NI political opinion is also covered for historical reasons .

I think the equality authority is going to win this easily enough and I would hope they would win it down here also , no matter how it is cloaked it is based on sexual orientation .

Freedom of religion doesn't of shouldn't apply to a business . You can bake all the cakes you want or not as a private individual . It changes when you stop being an individual. It should go the same way as the B&B in the UK.

But it seems from the information available that the Equality Commission is only taking this on the political opinion grounds rather than the sexual orientation grounds. That suggests they share my view that they are unlikely to succeed on the sexual orientation grounds.

A business isn't just a business when it is a family-owned business.

The B&B is different, they refused an actual person, the bakery refused a slogan.

IF this is won, it extends sexual discrimination law into areas untouched before which is why it is an interesting case. If it was my bakery, I wouldn't have refused to bake the cake, but I am not sure that the bakery did anything illegal.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

But it seems from the information available that the Equality Commission is only taking this on the political opinion grounds rather than the sexual orientation grounds. That suggests they share my view that they are unlikely to succeed on the sexual orientation grounds.

A business isn't just a business when it is a family-owned business.

The B&B is different, they refused an actual person, the bakery refused a slogan.

IF this is won, it extends sexual discrimination law into areas untouched before which is why it is an interesting case. If it was my bakery, I wouldn't have refused to bake the cake, but I am not sure that the bakery did anything illegal.

Quite possibly, I don't see that as an issue . They may or may not share your view , we have no way of knowing , but I agree they would automatically go with the strongest case.

Do you know what the slogan was ?

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

Quite possibly, I don't see that as an issue . They may or may not share your view , we have no way of knowing , but I agree they would automatically go with the strongest case.

Do you know what the slogan was ?

According to the newspaper report it was "Support Gay Marriage".

aloyisious

The cake is on the front page of today's Belfast Telegraph, being cut by the former mayor of North Down, Andrew Muir (alliance party). The first Minister, Peter Robinson, think's it's bonkers. So it's no longer just about civil rights, it's got political legs as well.

gizmo555

There truly is a first time for everything when I find myself in agreement with Peter Robinson. According to the BelTel story:

The Equality Commission is seeking compensation of £500 damages for "injuries to feelings, loss and damage" and legal costs for four alleged breaches of two statutory laws - the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 and Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

Swan Curry

Well if he shares the same views on homosexuality as his wife, I'm not going to pay much attention to his comments.

Annasopra

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why was the company targeted ?

What evidence is there that Ashers targeted?

Fr Tod Umptious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What evidence is there that Ashers targeted?

The simple fact that the LGBT group picked them to bake their cake rather than one of a million others in the city.

I may be incorrect here but I have a feeling that Ashers is know to be owned by people with strong Christian views,the name Asher is from the bible.

Thus their selection ny the LGTB group is, IMO, sinister

Annasopra

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The simple fact that the LGBT group picked them to bake their cake rather than one of a million others in the city.

I may be incorrect here but I have a feeling that Ashers is know to be owned by people with strong Christian views,the name Asher is from the bible.

Thus their selection ny the LGTB group is, IMO, sinister

No evidence other than a bible name. :rolleyes: No evidence whatsoever

Fr Tod Umptious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No evidence other than a bible name. :rolleyes: No evidence whatsoever

As I said I don't know if its well known or not in the North that the family that own Ashers are have strong Christian beliefs.

But if it is then their selection by a LGBT group to make a cake with a pro same sex marriage slogan is a bit odd don't you think ?

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As I said I don't know if its well known or not in the North that the family that own Ashers are have strong Christian beliefs.

But if it is then their selection by a LGBT group to make a cake with a pro same sex marriage slogan is a bit odd don't you think ?

Why ? If one organisation believes another is not conforming to the law then bring a test case . Quite common in civil rights campaigns , nothing sinister about it.


It can work in reverse also as we found to our cost down here , if you remember after the abortion referendum was passed we had a spate of actions against pro abortion groups , despite assurances to the contrary before the vote .

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

Why ? If one organisation believes another is not conforming to the law then bring a test case . Quite common in civil rights campaigns , nothing sinister about it.


It can work in reverse also as we found to our cost down here , if you remember after the abortion referendum was passed we had a spate of actions against pro abortion groups , despite assurances to the contrary before the vote .

Good, so at least we agree they were targeted

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good, so at least we agree they were targeted

If you like , no different than reporting an incidence of hate speech or a myriad other examples .

NuMarvel

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The simple fact that the LGBT group picked them to bake their cake rather than one of a million others in the city.

I may be incorrect here but I have a feeling that Ashers is know to be owned by people with strong Christian views,the name Asher is from the bible.

Thus their selection ny the LGTB group is, IMO, sinister

I'd never heard the name Asher's in a religious context before this case. If you'd asked me where I thought the name came from, I'd have said it was the name of the family that founded the company. I suspect most other people would say the same.

Even if the connection was obvious, it doesn't follow that Christians are automatically opposed to marriage for gay people.

Nodin

Swan Curry wrote: »

Well if he shares the same views on homosexuality as his wife, I'm not going to pay much attention to his comments.

Let's see, shall we?

"First Minister Peter Robinson last night endorsed his wife’s controversial views on homosexuality — and then called on gays to support his party.

Mr Robinson’s backing for his MP wife Iris over her description of homosexuality as an “abomination” was voiced in a TV interview.
He also stated that he had “no idea” if there were any gays in the DUP.

The First Minister told the BBC Northern Ireland Hearts and Minds programme: “It wasn’t Iris Robinson who determined that homosexuality was an abomination, it was the Almighty.

“This is the Scriptures and it is a strange world indeed where somebody on the one hand talks about equality, but won’t allow Christians to have the equality, the right to speak, the right to express their views.”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/first-minister-peter-robinson-backs-wifes-view-that-gays-are-an-abomination-28510012.html

So no, not exactly an impartial bystander.

Annasopra

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good, so at least we agree they were targeted

Theres no evidence of that.