To have one's Gay cake and eat it.
to bake a cake from a gay customer which said support same-sex marriage. As Northern Ireland is the one part of the UK
which has not voted in the same-sex marriage, i'm surprised the defense didn't push this point.
If a baker in England made a cake saying sniff cocaine now, would he/she not be breaking the Law ?
I'm straight and an atheist so am not bias either way.
Comments
-
Nosoapboxsam said:Interesting Ruling that a Christian Bakery in county Antrim has been found guilty of Discrimination because they refused
to bake a cake from a gay customer which said support same-sex marriage. As Northern Ireland is the one part of the UK
which has not voted in the same-sex marriage, i'm surprised the defense didn't push this point.
If a baker in England made a cake saying sniff cocaine now, would he/she not be breaking the Law ?
I'm straight and an atheist so am not bias either way.
0 -
I thought they were found not-guilty?0
-
So it's illegal for a business to decline work if it doesn't want it?0
-
If you wanted to do anything to support Gay Marriage why bake a frickin cake?
0 -
A judge in Northern Ireland found them guilty this Morning of Discrimination,
even thou there is no same sex marriage in NI.
0 -
Why not just buy a cake and do the lettering yourself, double busy.0
-
The guy who brought it to court is a gay rights activist so had clearly targeted the bakers in question. They're still in the wrong though.Charltonparklane said:Why not just buy a cake and do the lettering yourself, double busy.
2 -
I believe that in the case, the bakery initially took the order, and then declined to deliver based on their own religious sensibilities (oxmoron?). not sure if it would have been any different if they had refused to take the order in the first place.
0 -
Because the Gay activist knew that Ashers the baker's were christians'Charltonparklane said:Why not just buy a cake and do the lettering yourself, double busy.
and then got the equality commission involved.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Was it a nice cake ?0
-
0
-
Fruit cake apparently.ShootersHillGuru said:Was it a nice cake ?
12 -
Really? We have to sink to that, do we?Nicholas said:
Fruit cake apparently.ShootersHillGuru said:Was it a nice cake ?
3 -
If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.0 -
They've discriminated against people on the grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs. It's as simple as that.0
-
0
-
#facepalmShootersHillGuru said:
0 -
What a load of shit!
It goes against their religious beliefs!
Every time I order a kebab from now on I'm going to ask for non halal meat and sue every shop that doesn't go against their religious beliefs and comply.1 -
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
It benefits anyone who doesn't want to be discriminated against, by businesses, on the grounds of their sexuality or political beliefs.se9addick said:
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.1 -
How ? The refusal wasn't to bake a cake for a gay person - that would have been discrimination.Chizz said:
It benefits anyone who doesn't want to be discriminated against, by businesses, on the grounds of their sexuality or political beliefs.se9addick said:
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.
The refusal was to print a slogan which promotes something illegal in that country.
I'm a supporter of marriage equality but I don't see how this advances it at all, just because we consider ourselves liberal doesn't mean we shouldn't question decisions that are made.1 -
Could you be arsed... Just spend an hour baking the bloody cake and save everyone the time and effort.2
-
It was discrimination. That's not my opinion, it's the ruling of the judge, who sat through three days of evidence, and whose ruling included the following: "the defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination. This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification."se9addick said:
How ? The refusal wasn't to bake a cake for a gay person - that would have been discrimination.Chizz said:
It benefits anyone who doesn't want to be discriminated against, by businesses, on the grounds of their sexuality or political beliefs.se9addick said:
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.
The refusal was to print a slogan which promotes something illegal in that country.
I'm a supporter of marriage equality but I don't see how this advances it at all, just because we consider ourselves liberal doesn't mean we shouldn't question decisions that are made.0 -
Does this mean that no cake company is allowed to turn down making a cake due to the content? Or is it just content concerning race/sexuality?0
-
SE9, you have picked up on the point of law in NI which i was referring too.se9addick said:
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.
the icing was the issue not the Baking of the cake.
0 -
It means that no cake company is allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexuality or political beliefs. So, no change, really.SELR_addicks said:Does this mean that no cake company is allowed to turn down making a cake due to the content? Or is it just content concerning race/sexuality?
1 -
Fair enough.Chizz said:
It was discrimination. That's not my opinion, it's the ruling of the judge, who sat through three days of evidence, and whose ruling included the following: "the defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination. This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification."se9addick said:
How ? The refusal wasn't to bake a cake for a gay person - that would have been discrimination.Chizz said:
It benefits anyone who doesn't want to be discriminated against, by businesses, on the grounds of their sexuality or political beliefs.se9addick said:
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.Addicted said:If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.
The refusal was to print a slogan which promotes something illegal in that country.
I'm a supporter of marriage equality but I don't see how this advances it at all, just because we consider ourselves liberal doesn't mean we shouldn't question decisions that are made.2 -
This ruling, like the preceding one about the Christian B&B, is a tragedy because it's weighing two 'discriminations' against each other. The owners of the cake shop are being discriminated against because insisting on the request's fulfilment would contravene their religious freedom. The gay guys are discriminated against because the response of the baker was driven by the matter of their sexuality (or at least the associated issue). Both are protected in law, but the law doesn't allow for a conscience of faith and therefore - even though this is in my view opportunistic - those that are acting in accordance with that will lose on the black and white of the regulations.
The wording of the message on the cake is a red herring in terms of its legality. It's not illegal to express a view, even if it's opposite to the prevailing law - although some messages might be considered incitement I guess.
It's my personal view that in both cases the religious owners are entitled to work out their faith in their business, provided that is appropriately publicised at the point of an order being place. It's a free market, and if the precise services you want aren't available to you then you go somewhere else. In fact in both cases the owners were willing to provide the service, but on varied terms due to the nature of the request. And in both cases comparable alternatives were available to the customers.
EDIT: Wonder if they'd have been found guilty if a straight guy asked for the same message and was refused...1 -
Do pub landlords still have the right to not serve someone and not have to give a reason?
0
