Gay Cake Controversy!

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is Northern Ireland we are talking about, and these folks have already publicly announced they are a "Christian bakery", IDing the community they serve very clearly - if they were allowed say "No Taigs" they would get more business, not less.

They never announced or advertised their Christian principles; they have only become publicly known because of this case. There have been some rather snide suggestions on Boards that Lee only placed the order with them because he knew it would be refused, but in fact from the evidence in the case Lee did not know that the bakers were Christians until several days after he placed his order, when they declined it and said why, and similarly they did not know that he was gay until he said so in the pleadings in the proceedings.

gozunda

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't agree with the beliefs of the shop owner, but they should have the right to refuse to make a cake with a message they disagree with.
If I opened a cake shop, I would certainly refuse to bake a cake with a White Power, Neo-Nazi, Racist, etc slogan. I should have the right to refuse to make the cake based on it's message, not on the fact that the person ordering the cake was a Neo-Nazi or racist or whatever.That's what this ruling has said, and in all fairness, it is simple common sense.

Just out of interest what part of the bible has the references to White Power and Nazis etc? I though we were dealing with Christian teachings and biblical prohibitions in a bakery no?


Most of that type of stuff you mentioned is included under incitement to hatred laws afaik. So your have no problem problem there anyway. Interestingly the message asked for doesn't ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

nullzero

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Would love to know who is backing him and funding him in this witch hunt. !

I'm sure George Soros has better things to be doing before you say anything...

Edit, someone beat me to it.

Edgware

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Maybe not

The fella involved Gareth Lee is thinking of appealing to Europe

"Lee said he would be considering his options, which could involve appealing to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

gmisk

Edgware wrote: »

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

Yeah screw em! It's working out brilliantly so far for the UK isn't it!... Oh wait...

Spook_ie

sightband wrote: »

I’ve ignored this case all together so apologies if it has already been mentioned...but what exactly was the message on the cake or what was it supposed to look like? I think this is relevant as if it was as simple as “happy anniversary to Jim and Barry” then bake and ice cake and who gives a sh*t, but if it was a big sponge cake shaped like a pair of arse cheeks with a big veiny flute going up into it then fair enough, wouldn’t be too thrilled about getting that request either and refusing to do it should be at the bakers discretion.

https://news.sky.com/story/christian-bakers-win-gay-cake-supreme-court-fight-11522566

There's a piccy of ( presumably ) the cake from a different bakery

Spook_ie

Simple story over blown, it WASN'T a Wedding cake for a gay or any other type of wedding, it was a political message on a cake.

Peregrinus

Edgware wrote: »

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

You're sayin that British people are so incredibly stupid that even after a lengthy public campaign they voted in the belief that leaving the European Union would affect in any way at all the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, neither of which have anything to do with the EU?

Hoboo

£36 for the cake. According to reports, 10,000 times that in costs. He targeted that shop knowing it would refuse, just to make a point. Hope it was worth it.

Edgware

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're sayin that British people are so incredibly stupid that even after a lengthy public campaign they voted in the belief that leaving the European Union would affect in any way at all the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, neither of which have anything to do with the EU?

They can tell E.C.H.R. to **** off as well while they are at it

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

They never announced or advertised their Christian principles; they have only become publicly known because of this case.

Yes, that's what I mean - their defense is that they are a Christian bakery, they identified with the Protestant community as part of the publicity surrounding the case, and I would not be at all surprised if their business went up when that community learned that they were a) "one of us" and b) "standing up for us"

gmisk

Hoboo wrote: »

£36 for the cake. According to reports, 10,000 times that in costs. He targeted that shop knowing it would refuse, just to make a point. Hope it was worth it.

He targeted the shop? Any proof of that?
The actual rulings say the opposite.. ... He had no idea it was 'Christian' bakery.
But hey who needs facts really when you can make up rubbish.

end of the road

Edgware wrote: »

They can tell E.C.H.R. to **** off as well while they are at it

why? because it dared to rain in britain and forced them to modernise? because it dared to rule on the basis of evidence and law rather then jumping to britain's tune and ruling in a way that suits britain all the time?

Zubeneschamali

Until they turn around and refuse to make cakes with Catholic messages, that is.

hatrickpatrick

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

Hoboo

gmisk wrote: »

He targeted the shop? Any proof of that?
The actual rulings say the opposite.. ... He had no idea it was 'Christian' bakery.
But hey who needs facts really when you can make up rubbish.

Of course he didnt know :rolleyes: Because he said he didnt know it must be true. Just like the numerous similar cases in the US, e.g Colorado.

Gay rights activist just happens to request a known christian bakery for a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan. And then takes them to court. M'kay.

I hope he lost his balls.

Ragnar Lothbrok

gozunda wrote: »

Just out of interest what part of the bible has the references to White Power and Nazis etc? I though we were dealing with Christian teachings and biblical prohibitions in a bakery no?


Most of that type of stuff you mentioned is included under incitement to hatred laws afaik. So your have no problem problem there anyway. Interestingly the message asked for doesn't ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

My argument is that a bakery (or any business really) should be able to decide if it makes a particular product or not. Religious views are only one possible reason for this (I'm a lifelong atheist, so that doesn't concern me directly).

This particular case relates to deeply held religious beliefs, which I find frankly ridiculous, but I can appreciate and support their desire to stand by these beliefs.

I would not however, support them if they banned non-heterosexual people from their shop entirely, as that is an entirely different matter.

Perhaps a better example than the neo-nazi cake would be a Republican cake, "Support a United Ireland". As nationalists and unionists now have equality in the eyes of the law, and discrimination on such grounds is illegal, do you believe the bakers (who as Christian fundamentalists are probably unionist or loyalist) should be forced to bake such a cake? I certainly don't think they should (and I'm a Republican).

topper75

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

The finding suggests there was in fact no discrimination though. I tend to agree - there was no precedent of them making any such cake for anybody else.

I'd bake the cake for them no issue. I'd display it in the shop to show off and drum up more business.
But I wouldn't stoop so low for business that I would facilitate any and every political cause. I should be allowed that discretion as a free individual. Others might not like that. But others are not me. Good core values are preserved here. The downsides are mild disappointment (if you take their cake request as bona fide) and an appalling legal bill.

Markcheese

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in any way at all IMO. If the Supreme Court took their side, this would most likely require constitutional change which would be tricky, but I reckon a referendum would ultimately pass.

But wasn't that in the ruling... Ashers couldn't discriminate against Mr lee, but they didn't have to include a message which was a against their beliefs.

Was this just a simple cake order that spiraled out of control when each side went political and legal? (and people are still heaping more fuel on, with Arlene Foster congratulating ashers bakery), or was it more calculated by one side or the other, ("nothing can be proven anyway) .
At least it was only a cake...

sightband

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that's what I mean - their defense is that they are a Christian bakery, they identified with the Protestant community as part of the publicity surrounding the case, and I would not be at all surprised if their business went up when that community learned that they were a) "one of us" and b) "standing up for us"

Do you happen to know what Lees background? Is he from a nationalist/republican background?

gmisk

Hoboo wrote: »

Of course he didnt know :rolleyes: Because he said he didnt know it must be true. Just like the numerous similar cases in the US, e.g Colorado.

Gay rights activist just happens to request a known christian bakery for a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan. And then takes them to court. M'kay.

I hope he lost his balls.

I'd say he just Googled Christian bakery and went for them...that seems much more plausible.
Seriously lol.

I doubt he lost anything the equality commission backed his case.

gmisk

Markcheese wrote: »

But wasn't that in the ruling... Ashers couldn't discriminate against Mr lee, but they didn't have to include a message which was a against their beliefs.

Was this just a simple cake order that spiraled out of control when each side went political and legal? (and people are still heaping more fuel on, with Arlene Foster congratulating ashers bakery), or was it more calculated by one side or the other, ("nothing can be proven anyway) .
At least it was only a cake...

Don't mention fuel around our Arlene... Touchy subject

suicide_circus

will costs be awarded against the complainant?

Penn

Hoboo wrote: »

Of course he didnt know :rolleyes: Because he said he didnt know it must be true. Just like the numerous similar cases in the US, e.g Colorado.

Gay rights activist just happens to request a known christian bakery for a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan. And then takes them to court. M'kay.

I hope he lost his balls.

Didn't they say that he had bought cakes there previously, and therefore they didn't refuse to serve him on the basis of his sexuality? As such, it's more likely that he simply went to the bakery he had bought cakes from previously, without knowing they would refuse to make this one (because how could anyone possibly identify how religious the owners of a non-religion-based business might be). Even Ashers own website barely mentions religion, except this small paragraph on their About page:
Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king.

Fair enough if you disagree with the ruling etc, but you're ascribing motives to him that you have no basis for.

Spook_ie

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

My argument is that a bakery (or any business really) should be able to decide if it makes a particular product or not. Religious views are only one possible reason for this (I'm a lifelong atheist, so that doesn't concern me directly).

This particular case relates to deeply held religious beliefs, which I find frankly ridiculous, but I can appreciate and support their desire to stand by these beliefs.

I would not however, support them if they banned non-heterosexual people from their shop entirely, as that is an entirely different matter.

Perhaps a better example than the neo-nazi cake would be a Republican cake, "Support a United Ireland". As nationalists and unionists now have equality in the eyes of the law, and discrimination on such grounds is illegal, do you believe the bakers (who as Christian fundamentalists are probably unionist or loyalist) should be forced to bake such a cake? I certainly don't think they should (and I'm a Republican).

Certainly wouldn't ask a loyalist bakery to bake a republican cake or vice versa, never know what you might find among the ingredients

Varik

Was it that they weren't required to violate their own religious beliefs (protected group) or was the refusal legal as they refused the message (not a person or group) rather than the customer(protected group).

If the second being a religiously operated business wouldn't matter.

CIARAN_BOYLE

suicide_circus wrote: »

will costs be awarded against the complainant?

no costs afaik both sides sponsored by charitable organisations

Varik

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

no costs afaik both sides sponsored by charitable organisations

The bakery was, I think it would have been the state for the other side.

suicide_circus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Certainly wouldn't ask a loyalist bakery to bake a republican cake or vice versa, never know what you might find among the ingredients

If it was a regular cake they couldn't refuse. But if it was an eireann go bragh cake depicting king billy getting rogered by bobby sands I think they could refuse the order in good conscience

gmisk

Varik wrote: »

The bakery was, I think it would have been the state for the other side.

What charity I wonder?
Is it a charity like the way the íona institute is a charity?

Hoboo

Penn wrote: »

Even Ashers own website barely mentions religion, except this small paragraph on their About page:
Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king.

Fair enough if you disagree with the ruling etc, but you're ascribing motives to him that you have no basis for.

I agree with the ruling. US gay rights groups have done the same in the past. From the site it was quite clear they are a christian bakery. He is a prominent member of a gay rights group. Doesn't take much to make a very plausible link.

Edgware

If the decision went against the bakery the whingers and "legal experts" here would accept the decision but now that it didn't just suck it up.

wexie

Edgware wrote: »

If the decision went against the bakery the whingers and "legal experts" here would accept the decision but now that it didn't just suck it up.

seems to me most people here are agreeing with the verdict?

Did I miss something?

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

From the site it was quite clear they are a christian bakery. He is a prominent member of a gay rights group. Doesn't take much to make a very plausible link.

From the judgment, section I The facts:

He had previously bought cakes from Ashers shop in Royal Avenue, Belfast, but he was not personally known to the staff or to Mr and Mrs McArthur. He did not know anything about the McArthurs’ beliefs about marriage and neither they nor their staff knew of his sexual orientation.

Snickers Man

Let me concur with Fintan O'Toole writing on this case in the Irish Times on May 5th 2015
"..free expression is a basic democratic value. It doesn’t just mean that, within reason, you can say what you want to say but also that you cannot be forced to say what you don’t want to say."

Too right. And it's a disgrace that people have to go to the UK Supreme Court to have that basic common sense truth articulated and their position vindicated three and a half years later.

And why oh why oh why has the same-sex marriage lobby got such an obsession with the confectionery industry? Ashers are not the only cake shop demonised in these islands for not getting fully with the program. There was another shop in Dublin that got into trouble too, but I forget the full details.

I'll bet there are oodles of cake shops and bakeries staffed with people who would be only too pleased to bake the gayest cakes possible. Why pick on the one or two who would be uncomfortable with it?

wexie

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'll bet there are oodles of cake shops and bakeries staffed with people who would be only too pleased to bake the gayest cakes possible. Why pick on the one or two who would be uncomfortable with it?

Because they are uncomfortable with it and people feel they shouldn't be.

There's no fight or drama to be had with the ones that will happily put whatever slogan on your cake/tshirt/whatever.

Where would the fun (read : publicity) be in that?

ittakestwo

Edgware wrote: »

Ya. Another reason why the U.K. voted for Brexit. Sick of Europe calling the shots and telling them how run the country.

The judge said it was against article 10 of The European Human Rights. So in away it was Europe calling shots on this one.

Zubeneschamali

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'll bet there are oodles of cake shops and bakeries staffed with people who would be only too pleased to bake the gayest cakes possible. Why pick on the one or two who would be uncomfortable with it?

Those coloured folks have their own restaurants and all, I hear they are very nice, why do they want to come into ours?

bloodless_coup

I definitely wouldn't be baking or eating a gay cake.

wexie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those coloured folks have their own restauants and all, I hear they are very nice, why do they want to come into ours?

Do you truly believe that's comparable?

Noveight

Excellent to see common sense trumped the need to pander to deliberately obtuse members of the LGBTQIABC+ community this time.

Yer Da sells Avon

Snickers Man wrote: »

And why oh why oh why has the same-sex marriage lobby got such an obsession with the confectionery industry? Ashers are not the only cake shop demonised in these islands for not getting fully with the program. There was another shop in Dublin that got into trouble too, but I forget the full details.

I think that was Daintree - a wedding stationery shop on Camden Street. The (former) owner was a die-hard Catholic, and refused to stock anything that 'promoted' same-sex marriage. I think he sold the business shortly afterwards, which was probably the right thing to do, considering the fact that he wasn't in a position to provide a proper service to his customers.

Zubeneschamali

wexie wrote: »

Do you truly believe that's comparable?

That is exactly what some people are saying: that it is OK if some shops discriminate against gay people because some other shop will serve them.

Shanotheslayer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is exactly what some people are saying: that it is OK if some shops discriminate against gay people because some other shop will serve them.

The shop didn't discriminate against gay people

Zubeneschamali

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

The shop didn't discriminate against gay people

Per the latest ruling and subject to the inevitable appeal to the European courts.

Shanotheslayer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Per the latest ruling and subject to the inevitable appeal to the European courts.

''Subject to the inevitable appeal''

Get a grip. Accept the loss and quit your whinging. It's obvious it wasn't discriminating.

Snickers Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is exactly what some people are saying: that it is OK if some shops discriminate against gay people because some other shop will serve them.

That is absolutely NOT what I said. And the court made it clear that was not the issue.

If you're so sure of the correctness of your position at least state the issue accurately.

UrbanFret

Good to see someone unwilling to bend over for the gay community.

gozunda

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

My argument is that a bakery (or any business really) should be able to decide if it makes a particular product or not. Religious views are only one possible reason for this (I'm a lifelong atheist, so that doesn't concern me directly).
This particular case relates to deeply held religious beliefs, which I find frankly ridiculous, but I can appreciate and support their desire to stand by these beliefs.
I would not however, support them if they banned non-heterosexual people from their shop entirely, as that is an entirely different matter.
Perhaps a better example than the neo-nazi cake would be a Republican cake, "Support a United Ireland". As nationalists and unionists now have equality in the eyes of the law, and discrimination on such grounds is illegal, do you believe the bakers (who as Christian fundamentalists are probably unionist or loyalist) should be forced to bake such a cake? I certainly don't think they should (and I'm a Republican).

Yeah it's just that the Nazis have been brought up so often in this discussion as if instances of hate speach are somehow comparable or relevant - their not.

Personally I believe religion should be left out of political, public and commercial interests. We have had enough of that type of shenanigans on the island of Ireland going back decades...

As long as something doesn't break the law - getting up on high personal moral horses is of no help to anyone

But then that's just me ...

wexie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

wexie wrote: »

Do you truly believe that's comparable?

That is exactly what some people are saying: that it is OK if some shops discriminate against gay people because some other shop will serve them.

I think a better comparison would be a restaurant that will happily serve black customers but won't let them put up a black power banner.

And I'm okay with that to be honest. From what I understand the bakery would have happily supplied a cake, they just didn't agree with the message the customer wanted on the cake. I would imagine it would have been no different if I had wanted a cake that said 'god is a dick'