Full rights for the LGBT community.

NuMarvel

conorh91 wrote: »

Why no answer?

I've answered your questions. All of them, even when you've asked me questions about things I never said.

Your problem isn't that I'm not answering your questions. Your problem is that I'm not giving you answers you want or like. And that really is your problem, not mine.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

F/J......

Delighted to see Pat Carey FF retired has come out officially to the general public.

aloyisious

Just announced on RTE, that it was decided by Govt (today) that Surrogancy and one other item had been pulled from the Justice Dept child and family relationship biil and handed to the Dept of Health which would handle Surrogancy in another bill to be introduced tomorrow More info to follow on the RTE 1 (5 PM to 7 PM) drive-time news programme.

aloyisious

This is a link to the Child and Family Relationship Bill and it's wording decided on by the Gov't today.... http://jrnl.ie/1943129

aloyisious

Gay Cork has lifted and pasted (on facebook) an article from The Irish Examiner re a gang attacking LGBT folk in Cork. The report say's that the gang has both men and women in it, using the net and other sources to post ads/draw people into traps

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/warning-over-homophobic-catfish-attacks-313132.html

conorh91

aloyisious wrote: »

Gay Cork has lifted and pasted (on facebook) an article from The Irish Examiner re a gang attacking LGBT folk in Cork. The report say's that the gang has both men and women in it, using the net and other sources to post ads/draw people into traps

That's awful. If it's true.

aloyisious

Another article in The Irish Examiner covering LGBT matters, like the one from it in the Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World? thread.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/equality-must-apply-in-employment-as-well-as-in-marriage-312933.html

Re the reported luring and attacking of UCC students by what seem's to be homophobes, this is from UCC LGBT Society....

aloyisious

Another reason those opposed to same-sex civil marriage have for a NO vote in the referendum. I'm beginning to think I was wrong about keeping the upper House to block silliness in the other one.

http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Irish-Senator-thinks-Mothers-Day-will-be-banned-due-to-gay-marriage/354572.htm.

aloyisious

Iona page on Facebook with "lift" of SPIKED magazine front page siding with D & G on comments about children and parents, hinting that Gay Pro-equal civil marriage supporters are viewing D & G as deviants. Iona-quote about Magazine article "Great piece slamming the critics of Dolce & Gabbana who dared to say children ought to have a mother and a father".

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/dg-said-something-we-disagree-with-destroy-those-deviants/16780#.VQgZu9KsXTp

marienbad

aloyisious wrote: »

Iona page on Facebook with "lift" of SPIKED magazine front page siding with D & G on comments about children and parents, hinting that Gay Pro-equal civil marriage supporters are viewing D & G as deviants. Iona-quote about Magazine article "Great piece slamming the critics of Dolce & Gabbana who dared to say children ought to have a mother and a father".

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/dg-said-something-we-disagree-with-destroy-those-deviants/16780#.VQgZu9KsXTp

I have to say this kind of 'censorship' makes me very uneasy

shruikan2553

I dont understand why a company should be allowed to treat people differently because of its "ethos" but nobody can dare treat it different because of its "ethos"

Not really the case with D&G as it was just them saying something but the reaction reminded me of it.

aloyisious

This'll cause some people upset (oh no - not on the national broadcasting station) tomorrow RTE 2 (don't tell the bride) at 9PM.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cork-same-sex-couple-become-first-to-tie-the-knot-at-an-irish-casino-668093.html#.VQnLXUn1Ba0.facebook

aloyisious

The Asher Baking Co V the N.I. Equality Commission wedding cake issue hasn't been let go stale.... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bert-and-ernie-gay-marriage-cake-row-could-force-muslims-to-print-prophet-mohammed-cartoons-lawyer-31076606.html

gizmo555

Very good point by the barrister representing Asher's. Does anyone seriously believe a conscientious and practicing Muslim would be legally pursued for refusing to produce a cake bearing an image of the Prophet Muhammad? Say, a reproduction of the "Charlie Hebdo" cover, after the Paris massacre?

That's the logic of the position the Equality Authority has taken - it's equality for everyone, except the poor bloody Christians.

aloyisious

gizmo555 wrote: »

Very good point by the barrister representing Asher's. Does anyone seriously believe a conscientious and practicing Muslim would be legally pursued for refusing to produce a cake bearing an image of the Prophet Muhammad? Say, a reproduction of the "Charlie Hebdo" cover, after the Paris massacre?

That's the logic of the position the Equality Authority has taken - it's equality for everyone, except the poor bloody Christians.

Nothing at all to do with the civil law operating in N.I. then? There's the chance that those in the Commission are from both sides of the Christian divide in N.I.

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

Nothing at all to do with the civil law operating in N.I. then? There's the chance that those in the Commission are from both sides of the Christian divide in N.I.

Any prosecuting authority, including the Equality Commission, exercises judgement and discretion in deciding what cases to pursue. I don't believe for a second that they would pursue a Muslim business owner in this way (and nor should they).

aloyisious

gizmo555 wrote: »

Any prosecuting authority, including the Equality Commission, exercises judgement and discretion in deciding what cases to pursue. I don't believe for a second that they would pursue a Muslim business owner in this way (and nor should they).

I went over the Muslim point some time in the past when the Muslims and Pork goods angle was brought up in the thread which was set up about this specific cake. I accepted then, as with the pork argument brought up, it was not likely that Muslims would be prosecuted for failing to accept the job. They would never have accepted the job in the first place, and anyone with a thinking mind would not have thought they COULD have, or approached a Muslim baker with the order.

Accepting the cake job could have ended up putting a Muslim at risk from within his own religion (on the grounds of apostasy) as homosexuality is a death sentence-offence in the eyes of some Muslim adherents. Not so the Christian bakery, which did take on the job, before changing it's mind and rescinding it's acceptance of it.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

I went over the Muslim point some time in the past when the Muslims and Pork goods angle was brought up in the thread which was set up about this specific cake. I accepted then, as with the pork argument brought up, it was not likely that Muslims would be prosecuted for failing to accept the job. They would never have accepted the job in the first place, and anyone with a thinking mind would not have thought they COULD have, or approached a Muslim baker with the order.

Accepting the cake job could have ended up putting a Muslim at risk from within his own religion (on the grounds of apostasy) as homosexuality is a death sentence-offence in the eyes of some Muslim adherents. Not so the Christian bakery, which did take on the job, before changing it's mind and rescinding it's acceptance of it.

That's not good enough logic imo.

The more tolerant a person chooses to be, the more rules they must abide by?

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

Not so the Christian bakery, which did take on the job, before changing it's mind and rescinding it's acceptance of it.

We don't know the exact circumstances in which the order was initially accepted, although I gather it was taken by the mother of the business owner. Maybe she was too embarrassed to refuse, maybe the design wasn't immediately apparent to her (say, if it was provided on a USB stick), etc. No doubt we'll learn more when the case is heard in court.


You talk about a possible threat to physical safety for a Muslim producing images of the Prophet. What if the Christian baker in adhering to his religion believes producing the cake is a threat to his immortal soul?


For many people, that would be a much greater concern than mere physical safety. And if you're a genuine believer, as these people seem to be, you're supposed to live your faith in your day-to-day life, not just go through the motions once a week at church.

marienbad

gizmo555 wrote: »

We don't know the exact circumstances in which the order was initially accepted, although I gather it was taken by the mother of the business owner. Maybe she was too embarrassed to refuse, maybe the design wasn't immediately apparent to her (say, if it was provided on a USB stick), etc. No doubt we'll learn more when the case is heard in court.


You talk about a possible threat to physical safety for a Muslim producing images of the Prophet. What if the Christian baker in adhering to his religion believes producing the cake is a threat to his immortal soul?


For many people, that would be a much greater concern than mere physical safety. And if you're a genuine believer, as these people seem to be, you're supposed to live your faith in your day-to-day life, not just go through the motions once a week at church.

This is no different the B&B owners in the UK that refused the gay couple , if you are in business then you obey the law or find another business.

We have these examples all the time from catholic adoption agencies ,B&B's and now a cake shop and they all mirror exactly the segregation laws in the USA in the 50's and 60's . And when they were swept away the world didn't collapse.

As for a Muslim producing an image of the prophet , I would say a devout Muslim faces much greater challenges on a daily basis adapting to life in the Western countries , how is that done ?

gizmo555

marienbad wrote: »

This is no different the B&B owners in the UK that refused the gay couple , if you are in business then you obey the law or find another business.

I disagree. The people running the B&B were in the business of providing B&B accommodation and refused custom on the basis of the clients' sexual orientation. That's one thing.

Ashers' position, as I understand it, is that they are not in the business of producing pro-same sex marriage propaganda for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

And, in fact, they had no way of knowing the sexual orientation of the customer - he could very well have been straight. After all, the referendum here won't pass without the support of a very large number of heterosexual voters . . .

marienbad

gizmo555 wrote: »

I disagree. The people running the B&B were in the business of providing B&B accommodation and refused custom on the basis of the clients' sexual orientation. That's one thing.

Ashers' position, as I understand it, is that they are not in the business of producing pro-same sex marriage propaganda for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

And, in fact, they had no way of knowing the sexual orientation of the customer - he could very well have been straight. After all, the referendum here won't pass without the support of a very large number of heterosexual voters . . .

They are in the business of producing customised cakes, customised cakes of all kinds and this was a cake .

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

They are in the business of producing customised cakes, customised cakes of all kinds and this was a cake .

Should a printing company be compelled to print 'Pro-Life' banners? After all, they're in the business of printing customised graphics.

gizmo555

Deleted User wrote: »

Should a printing company be compelled to print 'Pro-Life' banners? After all, they're in the business of printing customised graphics.

Aidan O’Neill QC said a discrimination case against Ashers Baking Company – a Christian which cancelled an order to make a cake featuring the characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan ‘support gay marriage’ – could undermine freedom of conscience.

Mr O’Neill was commissioned by the Christian Institute, which is supporting the bakery’s legal defence, to provide a legal opinion on the implications of the case, which is due to come before a court in Belfast later this month.

The bakery is based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland.

He said the arguments upon which the legal action is based could also justify forcing a T-shirt company with a lesbian owner to print tops denouncing same-sex marriage as an “abomination” or an atheist web designer to build a website claiming the world was made by God in six days.

FreudianSlippers

Nobody should be "compelled" to print anything or bake any cake. If I want a cake with poison in it, surely the bakery can refuse?

I'm all for equality, but we're getting into nanny-state levels of b.s. here.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody should be "compelled" to print anything or bake any cake. If I want a cake with poison in it, surely the bakery can refuse?

I'm all for equality, but we're getting into nanny-state levels of b.s. here.

Perhaps equality should be dealt with on a macro level rather than a micro level. If I can't get a Bert and Ernie wedding cake made by anyone, then there is a societal problem. But if I can't get it made in one particular place and there are a dozen other places that will gladly accommodate me, the problem is lessened significantly.

How that would manifest itself in a justiciable right, I don't know. So we are left with the conundrum - do we sanction this individual baker to make an example and thus (in theory) create a more egalitarian society or do we let it slide on the basis that society as a whole is fine, and this is just one baker?

To be honest, it's a real margin call.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps equality should be dealt with on a macro level rather than a micro level. If I can't get a Bert and Ernie wedding cake made by anyone, then there is a societal problem. But if I can't get it made in one particular place and there are a dozen other places that will gladly accommodate me, the problem is lessened significantly.

How that would manifest itself in a justiciable right, I don't know. So we are left with the conundrum - do we sanction this individual baker to make an example and thus (in theory) create a more egalitarian society or do we let it slide on the basis that society as a whole is fine, and this is just one baker?

To be honest, it's a real margin call.

Leave them to it and let the market decide IMO

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Should a printing company be compelled to print 'Pro-Life' banners? After all, they're in the business of printing customised graphics.

That depends, if it is contrary to the prohibitions listed by the Equal Authority then yes , if not then no.

I am speaking about the Republic now, not too sure what the law is up north .

gizmo555

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps equality should be dealt with on a macro level rather than a micro level. If I can't get a Bert and Ernie wedding cake made by anyone, then there is a societal problem. But if I can't get it made in one particular place and there are a dozen other places that will gladly accommodate me, the problem is lessened significantly.

Isn't that kind of how motor insurance works? IIRC, if I can't get a quote from any insurer, I can in the end go back to the first one I asked and they must quote (of course, I may not be happy with the premium).

IMO its quite straightforward.

They weren't refusing to serve people based upon their sexuality (which at this point in time is still refreshingly unknown to the public at large - or I'm just wholly ignorant of their private lives), they were refusing their business based on what they were asked to produce, something which was unpalatable to them (though perfectly normal to the rest of us).

They should be afforded the right to refuse to produce anything that they don't want to. You ought not force/compel/demand a service from someone against their will.

Just as a poster printer might be entitled to refuse a "Sounds of Sodomy" poster seeking client. Or a pub might refuse the business of a person wearing a Football shirt (as is their discretion). Or a shopkeeper who wants to shut early on a Friday asking the two customers in his shop to leave.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Should a printing company be compelled to print 'Pro-Life' banners? After all, they're in the business of printing customised graphics.

marienbad wrote: »

That depends, if it is contrary to the prohibitions listed by the Equal Authority then yes , if not then no.

I am speaking about the Republic now, not too sure what the law is up north .

Very very scary authoritarian ideal to compel someone to do something against their will is it not?

(I'm not arguing the legislature aspect as I haven't a breeze, just the idea behind it)

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Very very scary authoritarian ideal to compel someone to do something against their will is it not?

(I'm not arguing the legislature aspect as I haven't a breeze, just the idea behind it)

Not at all , we do it all the time and no one bats an eyelid .

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , we do it all the time and no one bats an eyelid .

Such as conservative rural pharmacies having to supply contraceptives, for starters. But oh no, they must have everything their way in Libertopia, and anyone who wants contraceptives can **** off and hope that the next nearest pharmacy a further ~10km down the road) isn't just as conservative.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Such as conservative rural pharmacies having to supply contraceptives, for starters. But oh no, they must have everything their way in Libertopia, and anyone who wants contraceptives can **** off and hope that the next nearest pharmacy a further ~10km down the road) isn't just as conservative.

I'm assuming that the pharmacy is obliged to do so in order to meet its licencing requirements in order to operate as a pharmacy. Meanwhile the local shop has zero obligations to stock any.

I'd be very surprised if a bakery has similar obligations.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm assuming that the pharmacy is obliged to do so in order to meet its licencing requirements in order to operate as a pharmacy. Meanwhile the local shop has zero obligations to stock any.

I'd be very surprised if a bakery has similar obligations.

Very few obligations , one is not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, And if this is found to be the case then either they shut up shop or serve the cake to all and sundry . Or if found not to be the continue as is.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

Very few obligations , one is not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, And if this is found to be the case then either they shut up shop or serve the cake to all and sundry . Or if found not to be the continue as is.

They have not discriminated based upon sexual orientation. As far as we know they did not refuse to serve someone because of that person's sexual orientation. I have made the point several times.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

They have not discriminated based upon sexual orientation. As far as we know they did not refuse to serve someone because of that person's sexual orientation. I have made the point several times.

You making the point is immaterial , The Equality crowd have taken it up on that basis as far as I know and that is where this very issue will be decided .

You may well turn out to be correct but we don't know that yet.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

They have not discriminated based upon sexual orientation. As far as we know they did not refuse to serve someone because of that person's sexual orientation. I have made the point several times.

Post edited.... The refusal of the order was because it included writing a message on the cake about gay marriage. The baker claimed his religious belief was that marriage is not open to gay couples and he could not complete the order because of that, as to do otherwise would be in conflict with his beliefs. So, ipso facto, it is/was all about the cake and it's pro gay marriage message.

What part of the cake's message on supporting gay marriage having a link with homosexuals (and the subsequent refusal of the order by the baker on faith grounds because of the message) do you not see as directly linked?

Ta gizmo 555 for the info below.... with part of my original post and errors.

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

The refusal of the order was because it included writing a message on the cake about the gay couple's marriage. The cake and it's message were all about celebrating the gay couple getting married.

If you're talking about Asher's, you are completely mistaken. The order was not for a wedding cake, it was for a cake with this picture on it, to be served at a political event hosted by Alliance Party politician, Andrew Muir.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Post edited.... The refusal of the order was because it included writing a message on the cake about gay marriage. The baker claimed his religious belief was that marriage is not open to gay couples and he could not complete the order because of that, as to do otherwise would be in conflict with his beliefs. So, ipso facto, it is/was all about the cake and it's pro gay marriage message.

What part of the cake's message on supporting gay marriage having a link with homosexuals (and the subsequent refusal of the order by the baker on faith grounds because of the message) do you not see as directly linked?

Ta gizmo 555 for the info below.... with part of my original post and errors.

Agreed in full until your Ipso Facto though, given that it was not discrimination based upon the customers' sexuality (which is all I've pointed out, a few times too). The grounds for refusal of service were based upon 'simply' not wanting to complete the work.

I'm not in any way blind to the reasoning behind denial of service, however, I refute that it was discrimination based upon sexuality. If the bakery refused to serve gay people cakes, then we could get onto that topic, but at the moment, we must consider them the same as any customising service that decides not to complete an order based upon their own principles (wherever and however they came to hold those principles).

As before, I believe that a 'normal' bakery should certainly have the ability to choose not to fulfil an order for a "Anti-Baby Killers" (sorry) cake. Expressing either support or opposition for Same Sex Marriage and 'Pro-Life' campaigns are patently legal. How do you reconcile the 'normal' bakery's decision in the context that you've done the 'religious bakery'?

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed in full until your Ipso Facto though, given that it was not discrimination based upon the customers' sexuality (which is all I've pointed out, a few times too). The grounds for refusal of service were based upon 'simply' not wanting to complete the work.

I'm not in any way blind to the reasoning behind denial of service, however, I refute that it was discrimination based upon sexuality. If the bakery refused to serve gay people cakes, then we could get onto that topic, but at the moment, we must consider them the same as any customising service that decides not to complete an order based upon their own principles (wherever and however they came to hold those principles).

As before, I believe that a 'normal' bakery should certainly have the ability to choose not to fulfil an order for a "Anti-Baby Killers" (sorry) cake. Expressing either support or opposition for Same Sex Marriage and 'Pro-Life' campaigns are patently legal. How do you reconcile the 'normal' bakery's decision in the context that you've done the 'religious bakery'?

Continuing this part of the "debate". The cake message was for a promotion of gay marriage. gay marriage is when gay couples get married, gay people are homosexual. The order was refused solely because of the message promoting gay marriage. I'm a bit surprised that you continue to deny that there is a link between gay marriage promotion, gay marriage and gay (homosexual) couples in the refusal of the cake order by the baker, whilst at the same time you write "I'm not in any way blind to the reasoning behind denial of service". The refusal of service was NOT what you also wrote "'simply' not wanting to complete the work". That claim is refuted by the baker saying the refusal was made on specific grounds, those of his personal religious beliefs.

I did not make any mention of, or distinction between a "normal" bakery and the "religious bakery". Any reference made by me to the bakery was about it's refusal of an order because it saw the message as a promotion of gay marriage for gay people, period.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Continuing this part of the debate. The cake was for a promotion of gay marriage. Gay marriage is when gay couples get married. The order was refused solely because of the message promoting gay marriage. I'm a bit surprised that you continue to deny that there is a link between gay marriage promotion, gay marriage and gay couples in the refusal of the cake order by the baker, as if the fact that gay people are homosexual is not relevant to the religious belief quoted by the baker for his refusal of the order, whilst at the same time writing "I'm not in any way blind to the reasoning behind denial of service".

I did not make any mention or distinction between a "normal" bakery and the "religious bakery". Any reference made by me to the bakery was about it's refusal of an order because it saw the message as a promotion of gay marriage for gay people, period.

At no stage, not even once have I denied that there exists a link between gay marriage and the refusal of the order. I am not an idiot.

What I have said is that the order was not refused due to the sexuality of the customer, i.e not discrimination based upon sexuality. If a straight person had asked for the cake, it would have been refused on the grounds that they used. Are you perhaps arguing that the "statement of support" that was refused has a sexuality? And therefore the discrimination occurred against it?

You are suggesting that they ought not have the ability to use their discretion about what business to provide. Can you reconcile the position with the Pro-Life example? Or what if a printer refused to print that awful "Sounds of Sodomy" poster? Would they be discriminating based upon religion (sectarianism)?

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

Continuing this part of the "debate". The cake message was for a promotion of gay marriage. gay marriage is when gay couples get married, gay people are homosexual. The order was refused solely because of the message promoting gay marriage.

That's correct. And in my view, they ought to have the right to refuse to produce political material like this, which they profoundly disagree with. However, under Northern Ireland's equality legislation, it's illegal to discriminate on political grounds, but it's not on that basis Asher's are being taken to court.

The Equality Commission are claiming that the order was refused because of the sexual orientation of the customer, not because of the message on the cake. At the time the order was placed, the staff would have had no way of knowing the customer was gay. Obviously, a great many straight people support gay marriage too.

And the logic of the Commission's position is that the order would have been accepted by Asher's, provided they knew the customer was straight, which is an obvious nonsense.

aloyisious

I was wondering about the different versions of the "message" that were being posited as fit, or not fit, for refusal. Now that the Pro-life angle has been introduced for argument here, I perceive that I am being lead up the garden path so I won't bother with it, as that has nothing to do with a support gay marriage message.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

So the argument is that the requested message on the cake (in support of gay marriage) had absolutely nothing to do with the baker refusing the order, due to his personal religious beliefs, but more on the perceived sexuality of the person making the order?

It is my understanding from the statements released by the baker and his supporters that the refusal was made solely because the message was in conflict with his personal religious beliefs about marriage.

This is not complex.

Customer orders a cake with a message on it.
Baker agrees to fulfil order.
Baker then backs down and cites their religious 'validation' as a reason why they cannot fulfil the order.

People say that the baker should be compelled to deliver the cake as ordered. Others say that that's arse-ways. rinse-repeat.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

I was wondering about the different versions of the "message" that were being posited as fit, or not fit, for refusal. Now that the Pro-life angle has been introduced for argument here, I perceive that I am being lead up the garden path so I won't bother with it, as that has nothing to do with a support gay marriage message.

It's a method for discussing the balancing of rights. If you are comfortable dictating that a bakery must complete an order for messages you agree with, then you must also be as comfortable with a bakery being compelled to complete an order with a message you disagree with in order to validate that.

Personally, I am not.

I am absolutely, unequivocally 100% pro SSM. I believe that there are no logical reasons why LBGTQ people should not enjoy each and every right and responsibility that a straight person is afforded.

That being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we could compel anyone to create anything that they don't wan't to. That's why I bring up the 'Pro-Life' issue to highlight the difficulties in what you propose. I don't believe that this 'case' is worth highlighting other than as an anecdote about the intolerance of the church. However, forcing someone to ignore their own beliefs in order to do something is just as if not more intolerant.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a method for discussing the balancing of rights. If you are comfortable dictating that a bakery must complete an order for messages you agree with, then you must also be as comfortable with a bakery being compelled to complete an order with a message you disagree with in order to validate that.

Personally, I am not.

I am absolutely, unequivocally 100% pro SSM. I believe that there are no logical reasons why LBGTQ people should not enjoy each and every right and responsibility that a straight person is afforded.

That being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we could compel anyone to create anything that they don't wan't to. That's why I bring up the 'Pro-Life' issue to highlight the difficulties in what you propose. I don't believe that this 'case' is worth highlighting other than as an anecdote about the intolerance of the church. However, forcing someone to ignore their own beliefs in order to do something is just as if not more intolerant.

OK, I'm coming back to this in relation to your last sentence alone. It's my understanding that an order was made, and was accepted, by the bakery. The refusal was made at a later stage. The bakery is a commercial business.

If the issue was to be seen and dealt with purely as a consumers rights issue by the Dept of Trade (or it's N.I equivalent) would you still support the bakers decision to accept, then reject the order?

I'll give the cake issue a rest, as personally I never expected this much debate after I posted the update on court proceedings. I was waiting to see what happened there. If the cake thread set up about this issue was still around, I would have posted the update there. as this thread is about LGBT rights in general.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, I'm coming back to this in relation to your last sentence alone. It's my understanding that an order was made, and was accepted, by the bakery. The refusal was made at a later stage. The bakery is a commercial business.

If the issue was to be seen and dealt with purely as a consumers rights issue by the Dept of Trade (or it's N.I equivalent) would you still support the bakers decision to accept, then reject the order?

I'll give the cake issue a rest, as personally I never expected this much debate after I posted the update on court proceedings. I was waiting to see what happened there.

Yes, for all the reasons previously mentioned and explained.

Again, consider an alternative example if it the bakery is judged to not be permitted to change their mind, such as that of a printing company deciding not to print "Sounds of Sodomy" flyers after they've initially accepted the order.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, for all the reasons previously mentioned and explained.

Again, consider an alternative example if it the bakery is judged to not be permitted to change their mind, such as that of a printing company deciding not to print "Sounds of Sodomy" flyers after they've initially accepted the order.

One supposes, that a rational decision would be arrived at and seen by all as that. Problem is when one mixes in religious rights with civil rights, there's a hullabaloo. In this case, it being in N.I. and involving the above mix, I suspect there'd be a hullabaloo anyway, regardless of the Gov't body involved. Sounds of Sodomy sound's interesting, more like the title of a sermon about the naughty things going on "down south". Ta for mentioning S.O.S. by the way, it's lightened my spirits in an un-nughty way, reminding me not to take things here too seriously.

aloyisious

A video caught my eye last night, because I know there are Irish teenagers going through exactly what Tom is going through and what he is talking about.... The video is about Tom Sosnik, a 13 year-old boy trans-ing from F to M. You'll have to google for it using this title Tom Sosnik - transgender teen.

If and when the marriage referendum is passed, Tom's Irish counterparts in our society will be the next fight.