• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery[W:30]

LeoVlaming said:
There is no indication this business in any way denied service to this customer. They just refused to make a product which they found offensive. Since when is it "discriminiation" to refuse to make a particular product?
Click to expand...

The law doesn't discriminate (intended) between businesses that make a product and businesses that offer a service.

Jerry said:
I'm off in the peanut gallery making fun of people on both sides for caring because denying a customer for being gay is stupid and suing a business for refusing you for being gay is equally stupid and the US has bigger problems to worry about so this shouldn't be an issue and you're part of the problem just by talking about it.

Run-on sentences ftw.
Click to expand...

A reminder..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...st-ashers-bakery-w-30-a-3.html#post1064639368

Jerry said:
Her name is Christina, not Christian. Christina Ricci.
Click to expand...

Now THAT was funny..
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

alexa said:
You missed this bit then



Gay life in Northern Ireland is under threat

It would certainly suggest the feeling in NI was that this was refused due to them being gay.

It also speaks about the effect that homophobia has on gays in NI




The court found that they went against the equality laws. The did not advertise themselves as a Christian cake shop.

I am fascinated the way people keep trying to identify gays wanting equal rights to nazis supporters and others wishing to offend.

Now I must rush. Am out late.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you have introduced Nazi groups into the debate.

A conscience clause" bill is not homophobic. The ruling in this case doesn't do anything to address homophobia - it acts only to make it harder for people with political convictions which are different to the current and very controversial gay rights agenda from earning an honest crust. If anything, the stooshie arising from this is more likely to drive a wedge between people with opposing opinions on this issue.

I find it hard to identify closely with homosexuals because I'm not one. But I can understand a little that to have a central part of who you are not valued by many people around you is hard, probably very hard. But people have a right to their own views on homosexuality, even if gay people find those views hurtful. No-one is stopping gay people from getting a job or an education, at least, if they are, there are laws to deal with that, which few people would oppose. if gay people in N Ireland find the atmosphere so toxic there they can't survive normally, then they need support, and in extremis remove themselves from the situation until they are ready to return to it. In the meantime, it's totally fair and right to challenge people who stir up bad feeling against gay people in N Ireland. I don't know who these people are, or even if there are serious numbers of them.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
The law doesn't discriminate (intended) between businesses that make a product and businesses that offer a service.
Click to expand...
You're right, and so such a discrimination is probably needed. For example, the relationship I have with one-to-one language students is a personal one and it would be silly to expect me to work week after week with someone whose reason for learning English was offensive to me. It would affect our rapport. But the ruling in this case would support a student against me. Again, only a spiteful or mischievous student would think about litigation. Most would be relieved to find out early that I was uncomfortable working with them and find another teacher asap.

On the other hand, the gay lobby group could have bought all the cakes on sale in the bakery and used them for their beanfeast I think without any reasonable objection from the bakery, even if the customer had declared the reason. The cakes were put on sale publicly to everyone, irrespective of their purpose. However, if a customer makes a special request for a product or service for a particular cause which the owner finds offensive, then at that point, it is right that they can exercise a conscientious right to refuse. This seems the sensible solution.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Just for fun someone should walk into a muslim bakery and ask them to bake a cake with prophet Mohammed sucking a ****. And let us know how it works out for you.

If the bakery refuses you take them to court. I bet no judge will touch this with a 10 foot pole
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

So many straw men in this thread...

The most important question of the thread has already been asked:
Anglo-scot said:
So my question to you is : are these discrimination laws reasonable in practice?
Click to expand...
Or in other words, where should we draw the line at what is 'reasonable discrimination' and what is 'illegal discrimination'? I think most people here (hardcore 'libertarians' aside, naming no names) would agree that refusing to serve a black customer should count as illegal discrimination (or equally making a 'support interracial marriage' wedding cake). But there are a medley of people taking the argument to straw-man extremes - refusing to make a pro-Nazi cake etc would be a case of reasonable discrimination (IMO).

I would argue that you should only be allowed to discriminate based on choice. It should be fine to discriminate based on politics, football teams, piercings etc. But things over which people have no choice (age, gender, disability, sexuality, race) should be held as untouchable. I don't care if the religion you've chosen to believe in tells you "black people are all evil", you shouldn't be allowed to act based on that belief, no matter how sincerely you hold it.

In this case the judge rules that the bakers discrimination was not against a political message but against a message rooted in sexuality, and as such it was a protected case; the discrimination was illegal. This would not be the case for many of the other situations described as 'consequences' in this thread.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Un biased said:
Religion doesn't excuse you from discrimination laws , or any laws for that matter. Beliefs are not a free pass
Click to expand...

Their business, their property, their profit, their labor. What makes you think you have right to any of that?
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Anglo-scot said:
No - but discrimination laws have to be reasonable and the UK one is turning out to be far from reasonable. There's no serious disagreement in Britain about the rights of gay people to work without discrimination, or otherwise operate equally in public life. What we are talking about here is the state interfering in a private commercial arrangement for the delivery of a non-essential personal service. The service requested happens to relate to gay marriage - a highly controversial topic about which there is no general consensus, and in the case of N Ireland, is not even legal.

The detriment suffered by the customer was that he felt bad and had to go elsewhere for his cake - he didn't lose out on a job, or go hungry that night. The detriment to the bakery owner is now that they run the gauntlet of having to pay £500 to every mischief-making customer who asks them to produce a cake topping with a message they disagree with. And that's the key point - this law is a mischief-maker's charter. No reasonable person would get on their high horse and insist someone do something which violated their ethics. Can you imagine it? You ask me to design a cake topping with a message I find offensive. I tell you nicely that I really don't want to do it. You say - do it or I'll sue you. Is that what you want? Is that what society needs? Will I respect your beliefs afterwards and soften towards your position? Is this the kind of arrangement which the law should be regulating? I don't think so.

So my question to you is : are these discrimination laws reasonable in practice?
Click to expand...

The answer is "Yes"

Though the proponents of discrimination like to focus on the non-essential nature of cake decorations, the fact is that these laws were not written specifically for the decorators of cakes. They apply to all businesses.

For example, let's take auto mechanics. Should an auto mechanic be allowed to refuse to fix someone's car because they have a pro-SSM bumper sticker on the car or because they have a tattoo or some other factor for which they have a religious objection?

It is the proposed "conscience exclusions" which are unreasonable in practice. They essentially create a priviliged class who are immune from the law simply because they are religious.
 
Last edited:
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Anglo-scot said:
I don't know why you have introduced Nazi groups into the debate.



A conscience clause" bill is not homophobic.

The ruling in this case doesn't do anything to address homophobia - it acts only to make it harder for people with political convictions which are different to the current and very controversial gay rights agenda from earning an honest crust. If anything, the stooshie arising from this is more likely to drive a wedge between people with opposing opinions on this issue.

I find it hard to identify closely with homosexuals because I'm not one. But I can understand a little that to have a central part of who you are not valued by many people around you is hard, probably very hard. But people have a right to their own views on homosexuality, even if gay people find those views hurtful. No-one is stopping gay people from getting a job or an education, at least, if they are, there are laws to deal with that, which few people would oppose. if gay people in N Ireland find the atmosphere so toxic there they can't survive normally, then they need support, and in extremis remove themselves from the situation until they are ready to return to it. In the meantime, it's totally fair and right to challenge people who stir up bad feeling against gay people in N Ireland. I don't know who these people are, or even if there are serious numbers of them.
Click to expand...

I cannot get the quote function to work on this computer. You are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what I was presenting.

Your arguments have been that the gays were mischief making to bring the case and that the fundamental right lay with the owners of the shop to refuse the request because according to you it went against their conscience and that the conviction was wrong. The conviction had not been made when they tried to bring the conscience clause which is what you have been arguing about. If the bakery was already covered by this which you have been arguing then they would not have felt the need to try to bring in this private members bill.

You believe the shop has the right to freedom of conscience over and above the right of gay people to expect to be treated without discrimination.

I think in the way you describe how you cannot identify with homosexuals - if need be they should leave their home rather than get things sorted out is the base of where your thinking comes from rather than anything to do with rights. To you the right is discrimination however you cover it up. You do not need to be gay to feel empathy. We are all human. You fight for the right to be prejudiced by what you call conscience but not for the right for people to have equal treatment, that is the difference. I don't think you even know what homophobia is - if we let LGBT people live we are not homophobic,is that it? We have the right to hurt them so that they want to commit suicide? That is out right? Rights generally stop when they harm other people as the sort you are suggesting do. Ni clearly has a long way to go to sort out it's homophobia and give gay people equal rights.

Iangb in post 56 puts the matter simply and really I do not think there is any more to say after that.

(Regarding your suggestion I was bringing nazi's into the discussion, I suggest you read the thread to see how people responded to your continued suggestion that to expect to be treated without discrimination when that was what the law said was mischief making. It was not something directed at you simply at people equating the demand for a gay person to be treated without discrimination with the same right for nazis and similar)
 
Last edited:
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

sangha said:
The answer is "Yes"

Though the proponents of discrimination like to focus on the non-essential nature of cake decorations, the fact is that these laws were not written specifically for the decorators of cakes. They apply to all businesses.

For example, let's take auto mechanics. Should an auto mechanic be allowed to refuse to fix someone's car because they have a pro-SSM bumper sticker on the car or because they have a tattoo or some other factor for which they have a religious objection?

It is the proposed "conscience exclusions" which are unreasonable in practice. They essentially create a priviliged class who are immune from the law simply because they are religious.
Click to expand...
To follow your example, the objection to providing a normal car repair service, because it has a SSM sticker on it, is primarily based on who the owner is - either the owner is gay or at any rate a supporter of SSM. Such an objection is probably personal - it says "you are wrong" and I won't give your car the same routine service I give everyone else. The car sticker may play some part in the campaign for SSM but, let's be honest, lots of people have car stickers and having one doesn't turn your car into a SSM-campaign-mobile. To me this is morally wrong, but before we make it illegal, let's look at the following issue:

If the mechanic is more scrupulous than that, and rules out providing routine mechanical services every time he sees a bumper sticker he objects to, then he's being unreasonable. He will find it hard to operate in the free world with such scruples and make a living. I'd still support his right to do so, provided it wasn't part of a co-ordinated campaign to cause prejudice to a certain vulnerable group in society. If a whole group is saying, I can't get my car serviced because somehow most mechanics find out that I'm e.g. gay, black, Jewish etc and then find an excuse not to serve me, then there's a social problem which needs dealing with. If, though, the mechanic refuses to serve rich Republicans, then more fool him, but let him do it. I'm sure rich people don't struggle to get their car serviced.

So society would be justified in saying - homosexuals are a vulnerable group, so no service provider should be able to refuse service on the basis of who they are. Society may not need to do this with other groups who suffer similar discrimination e.g. rich people, because they are less likely to suffer detriment.

On the other hand, if a supporter of SSM (gay or straight) went to the mechanic and said, I'd like you to customise my car to make it into a SSM-campaign-mobile, then he should be able to say - I don't agree with SSM. This job is primarily about supporting a cause I don't agree with, so sorry. Any reasonable person would not sue the mechanic for being honest, wouldn't they?

If I came to your garage and said - please turn my car into a souped-up Sharia-law campaign-mobile, would you be OK spending two weeks of your time on the job?
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

If a bakery offers wedding cakes that say "best wishes Emma and Dylan", it should not be out of the question to expect them to bake one that says "best wishes Emma and Zoe".

If they do not normally offer such cakes, then demanding they do would be too aggressive for me.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

alexa said:
I cannot get the quote function to work on this computer. You are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what I was presenting.

Your arguments have been that the gays were mischief making to bring the case and that the fundamental right lay with the owners of the shop to refuse the request because according to you it went against their conscience and that the conviction was wrong. The conviction had not been made when they tried to bring the conscience clause which is what you have been arguing about. If the bakery was already covered by this which you have been arguing then they would not have felt the need to try to bring in this private members bill.

You believe the shop has the right to freedom of conscience over and above the right of gay people to expect to be treated without discrimination.

I think in the way you describe how you cannot identify with homosexuals - if need be they should leave their home rather than get things sorted out is the base of where your thinking comes from rather than anything to do with rights. To you the right is discrimination however you cover it up. You do not need to be gay to feel empathy. We are all human. You fight for the right to be prejudiced by what you call conscience but not for the right for people to have equal treatment, that is the difference. I don't think you even know what homophobia is - if we let LGBT people live we are not homophobic,is that it? We have the right to hurt them so that they want to commit suicide? That is out right? Rights generally stop when they harm other people as the sort you are suggesting do. Ni clearly has a long way to go to sort out it's homophobia and give gay people equal rights.

Iangb in post 56 puts the matter simply and really I do not think there is any more to say after that.

(Regarding your suggestion I was bringing nazi's into the discussion, I suggest you read the thread to see how people responded to your continued suggestion that to expect to be treated without discrimination when that was what the law said was mischief making. It was not something directed at you simply at people equating the demand for a gay person to be treated without discrimination with the same right for nazis and similar)
Click to expand...
I find it hard to follow all your reasoning right now but I'll respond to one point.

We are all responsible for our own feelings. If we are upset by someone else's views about our identity and lifestyle, that is our problem. If the other person is abusive, it's a different issue - there are ways to handle that. But if the person is reasonable in expressing their views, we have to live with that. This works both ways. But no-one has the right to make someone else responsible for their own hurt feelings, if their feelings are hurt only by differences of opinion.

The issue for me is that the militant gay lobby doesn't accept the legitimacy of different opinions to theirs when it comes to sexuality. This is when we topple towards totalitarianism, as seen in this ruling.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Anglo-scot said:
To follow your example, the objection to providing a normal car repair service, because it has a SSM sticker on it, is primarily based on who the owner is - either the owner is gay or at any rate a supporter of SSM. Such an objection is probably personal - it says "you are wrong" and I won't give your car the same routine service I give everyone else. The car sticker may play some part in the campaign for SSM but, let's be honest, lots of people have car stickers and having one doesn't turn your car into a SSM-campaign-mobile. To me this is morally wrong, but before we make it illegal, let's look at the following issue:
Click to expand...

You are completely dodging the issue. The fact is, an auto mechanic can have a sincere religious objection to servicing such a car and the law you support would allow him to refuse to repair it.

And I don't see how a message on a car is any different than a message on a cake

If the mechanic is more scrupulous than that, and rules out providing routine mechanical services every time he sees a bumper sticker he objects to, then he's being unreasonable. He will find it hard to operate in the free world with such scruples and make a living. I'd still support his right to do so, provided it wasn't part of a co-ordinated campaign to cause prejudice to a certain vulnerable group in society. If a whole group is saying, I can't get my car serviced because somehow most mechanics find out that I'm e.g. gay, black, Jewish etc and then find an excuse not to serve me, then there's a social problem which needs dealing with. If, though, the mechanic refuses to serve rich Republicans, then more fool him, but let him do it. I'm sure rich people don't struggle to get their car serviced.
Click to expand...

IOW, a little discrimination and segregation is OK. I must disagree.

So society would be justified in saying - homosexuals are a vulnerable group, so no service provider should be able to refuse service on the basis of who they are. Society may not need to do this with other groups who suffer similar discrimination e.g. rich people, because they are less likely to suffer detriment.

On the other hand, if a supporter of SSM (gay or straight) went to the mechanic and said, I'd like you to customise my car to make it into a SSM-campaign-mobile, then he should be able to say - I don't agree with SSM. This job is primarily about supporting a cause I don't agree with, so sorry. Any reasonable person would not sue the mechanic for being honest, wouldn't they?

If I came to your garage and said - please turn my car into a souped-up Sharia-law campaign-mobile, would you be OK spending two weeks of your time on the job?
Click to expand...

If my job was to paint cars with custom decorations, I would have no problem making money by painting a car with a custom decoration.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

iangb said:
So many straw men in this thread...

The most important question of the thread has already been asked:

Or in other words, where should we draw the line at what is 'reasonable discrimination' and what is 'illegal discrimination'? I think most people here (hardcore 'libertarians' aside, naming no names) would agree that refusing to serve a black customer should count as illegal discrimination (or equally making a 'support interracial marriage' wedding cake). But there are a medley of people taking the argument to straw-man extremes - refusing to make a pro-Nazi cake etc would be a case of reasonable discrimination (IMO).

I would argue that you should only be allowed to discriminate based on choice. It should be fine to discriminate based on politics, football teams, piercings etc. But things over which people have no choice (age, gender, disability, sexuality, race) should be held as untouchable. I don't care if the religion you've chosen to believe in tells you "black people are all evil", you shouldn't be allowed to act based on that belief, no matter how sincerely you hold it.

In this case the judge rules that the bakers discrimination was not against a political message but against a message rooted in sexuality, and as such it was a protected case; the discrimination was illegal. This would not be the case for many of the other situations described as 'consequences' in this thread.
Click to expand...
But the law "discriminates" on this basis. SSM is illegal in N Ireland and in many states in the US, as I understand it. See also my post 61.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Anglo-scot said:
But the law "discriminates" on this basis. SSM is illegal in N Ireland and in many states in the US, as I understand it. See also my post 61.
Click to expand...
Then that specific law should be changed; so far, it has not. From the look of it the first legal cases are in the system already.

That doesn't change the wider law - the Equality Act, which applies in NI, outlaws "discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.". In this particular case, the judge ruled that in this situation the act had been breached. You are trying to make out that this cake was a purely political statement; but the judge disagreed, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they had more pertinent information to the case than you do.

Your post #61 just provides another straw man. A 'sharia campaign-mobile' is a political issue, not a religious one - and politics is not a protected class. However, yes, you should rightly get in trouble if you refused to serve someone because they were Muslim.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Under US law it is legal for a bakery to refuse to put a MESSAGE it disagrees with on a cake, but they still have to sell the cake to anyone who wants to purchase it.

Laws are obviously different in Northern Ireland and it would seem this ruling is in keeping with their laws. I disagree with the law, but I think the judge ruled accordingly.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Where do you stand on this case? Gareth Lee could have gone elsewhere for his cake, could have baked his own cake - he could even have piped his own message on after leaving the shop but does this diminish the case against the bakery?

My first thoughts were a company should have a right to deny services or products but then I also remember the "no Blacks, no Irish and no Dogs" signs of the 50's in bed and breakfast establishments that were rightly outlawed. Personally I don't think it's as clear cut as the B&B cases of the 60's but I do come down on the law treating all such cases equally.
Click to expand...

You know, I wonder. Screw ups happen all the time. Things aren't ready on time, they aren't made right, the order gets lost. It happens.

I wonder if these bakeries and other establishments wouldn't be better served by accepting the orders, and just screwing them up. They can offer full refunds when the customer comes in to get their order, and the whole "violation" ending up in court bit could be avoided.

As far as I know, there is no law against being an inept business owner.

Just a thought.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
My first thoughts were a company should have a right to deny services or products but then I also remember the "no Blacks, no Irish and no Dogs" signs of the 50's in bed and breakfast establishments that were rightly outlawed. Personally I don't think it's as clear cut as the B&B cases of the 60's but I do come down on the law treating all such cases equally.
Click to expand...
Any reason why it's not that clear cut? It seems to be for me. I think the bakery even stated it in religious discrimination terms, and that's certainly how the opponents of the decision are framing it.
 
Andalublue said:
Any reason why it's not that clear cut? It seems to be for me. I think the bakery even stated it in religious discrimination terms, and that's certainly how the opponents of the decision are framing it.
Click to expand...

It would be clear cut if the bakery refused to serve gay people. In this case, they were asked to make a statement on a cake, alluded to in the article, but never specified as far as I can tell. Seems like sloppy reporting to indicate a "pro-gay" message without actually stating what they were asked to write.

In any case, if I were David Tenet, I might be waiting for that call when they decide to cast the lead roll in an upcoming made for t.v. movie.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Where do you stand on this case?
Click to expand...
On the side of anti-discrimination laws.

Since this is in Ireland rather than the US, I don't know how the laws are specifically structured.

That said, the principles involved are fairly clear. The baker is NOT being forced to make a specific expression, nor is there any assumption that the baker is supporting a specific political or religious position merely by writing something on a cake.

Further, if the baker is willing to provide a service for one type of customer but not another, then yes, the refusal is an act of discrimination.

Let's say a Jewish man enters the establishment, and requests a cake for a Bar Mitzvah. He instructs the baker to write a message in Hebrew. There is no assumption that the baker is actually Jewish, or supports whatever sentiments are expressed in Hebrew.

Or: Imagine that the owner is a Catholic, and a man requests a cake that makes a reference to a Protestant event. No one would presume that the owner's beliefs have changed, because he fulfills the customer's request.

In contrast, imagine that the Jewish man demands that the cake be kosher. The baker is entitled to refuse, because he does not offer that service to any of his customers. If he offers kosher baked goods to some customers but not others, that's discrimination.


There may be some exceptions for foul language or direct offense -- e.g. if the customer asks the baker to write "Screw the Irish, they stole the Grail" (10 points to anyone who gets the reference) the owner may take personal offense and refuse to serve the customer. That would be much more difficult to argue as an instance of discrimination.


Gareth Lee could have gone elsewhere for his cake, could have baked his own cake....
Click to expand...
This claim doesn't work either.

If any one bakery is entitled to refuse, then what happens when all bakeries refuse? Will one of the bakeries be compelled by the state to perform this service? Which one has to bite the bullet? How do you decide what a reasonable distance is? Is the customer supposed to spend two full days searching for a bakery that is willing to perform this service?


he could even have piped his own message on after leaving the shop but does this diminish the case against the bakery?
Click to expand...
It does not. If they offer the service to their customers, then refusing to offer that service for a specific customer is discriminatory.

E.g. if I've never written anything on a cake, am I likely to do a good job? No. Am I likely to have the expertise and skills to fix the cake, if something goes wrong? Nope. Demanding the customer do it themselves is not a fix for a discriminatory act.


I don't think it's as clear cut as the B&B cases of the 60's but I do come down on the law treating all such cases equally.
Click to expand...
I guess, but it's pretty close. The real difference is that discrimination against gays is still considered acceptable in some circles, thus those individuals feel empowered to continue to discriminate.
 
Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

Anglo-scot said:
I find it hard to follow all your reasoning right now
Click to expand...

Possibly. You did not seem to be answering to what I wrote before.
Anglo-scot said:
but I'll respond to one point.

We are all responsible for our own feelings. If we are upset by someone else's views about our identity and lifestyle, that is our problem.
Click to expand...

We brought in discrimination laws precisely because this is minimising the effect of discrimination. I gave you a quote and link which said that last year of gays in NI

47% had considered suicide, 25% had attempted it, 35% had self-harmed and 71% had suffered depression.
Click to expand...


Gay life in Northern Ireland is under threat

This clearly indicates that the situation is far more serious than you are suggesting and No, people are not always responsible for their feelings - now perhaps in therapy that is what a therapist may choose to say to work through it and change someone but the reality is we are, being human, all affected by each other. I hope we do not still but we used to have black children who tried to wash their faces white. That is how discrimination affects feelings in children.

Anglo-scot said:
If the other person is abusive, it's a different issue - there are ways to handle that.
Click to expand...

So now you are not saying we are all responsible for all our own feelings. Anglo-Scot you seem to be just fuzzing around trying to say very little except - tough luck gays.


Anglo-scot said:
But if the person is reasonable in expressing their views, we have to live with that.
Click to expand...

Again you seem to be expressing muddled concept. If the person is reasonable in expressing their views it would seem their would be little reason to be offended....but what are these views you are talking about.

This issue belongs to people in their place of work. How many people do you know who do not have to some time go against their better instincts at work. I would think very few. Hence if people have opened a cake shop and refuse to cater to people's needs because they are gay and there is a law against that, then they pay the price and making people pay the price is what is necessary to get inequality laws working.

There was a similar case in Britain a few years ago regarding refusing to give a double room to a gay couple because they were Christian. In that case the Christians lost too. Now I think in both those cases they could have refused service if they had set themselves up as a Christian service. They did not. They chose instead to serve the whole community and as such need to go by the laws of the whole community.

Anglo-scot said:
This works both ways. But no-one has the right to make someone else responsible for their own hurt feelings, if their feelings are hurt only by differences of opinion.
Click to expand...

We are though. When we make children feel that they want to wash their face white or teenagers feel suicidal because they fear alienation because of their sexuality, we have a responsibility. This is particularly true concerning when the people are minorities. Otherwise they would just kick us down and get on with the job. For that reason I am glad that in liberal democracies the Government takes on the responsibility of protecting minorities, or should do.


Anglo-scot said:
The issue for me is that the militant gay lobby doesn't accept the legitimacy of different opinions to theirs when it comes to sexuality.
Click to expand...

This is nothing about any militant gay lobby. It is perfectly clear that gays in NI are up against it. They have though got laws past to ensure equality. Now they need to work to make sure they are enforced.

Anglo-scot said:
This is when we topple towards totalitarianism, as seen in this ruling.
Click to expand...

Equal rights for gays is where we topple towards totalitarianism oh please. Rather the reverse.
 
ocean515 said:
You know, I wonder. Screw ups happen all the time. Things aren't ready on time, they aren't made right, the order gets lost. It happens.

I wonder if these bakeries and other establishments wouldn't be better served by accepting the orders, and just screwing them up. They can offer full refunds when the customer comes in to get their order, and the whole "violation" ending up in court bit could be avoided.

As far as I know, there is no law against being an inept business owner.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...


However though, in such cases the bakery could be liable for "damages" based on ruining the wedding reception in Civil Court. Which can get to be quite expensive.

Lawyers and as part of the suit issuing subpoenas and digging into the history of the bakery. Calling prior customers to the stand to testify how good the bakery was, how professional, how they delivered a quality product, delivered goods and services on time, etc. Then suddenly they "screw up" the order for the gay couple?

Could be expensive.


>>>>
 
Not only expensive but a peculiarly mean-sprited response from the professed religion of love.
 
WorldWatcher said:
However though, in such cases the bakery could be liable for "damages" based on ruining the wedding reception in Civil Court. Which can get to be quite expensive.

Lawyers and as part of the suit issuing subpoenas and digging into the history of the bakery. Calling prior customers to the stand to testify how good the bakery was, how professional, how they delivered a quality product, delivered goods and services on time, etc. Then suddenly they "screw up" the order for the gay couple?

Could be expensive.

>>>>
Click to expand...

I suppose. I thought about that. I guess if the plaintiff were motivated enough they could pursue the matter all the way.

I personally think it's foolish to turn down any business, but I'm not comfortable with the witch hunt that is going on. There must be a loop hole somewhere.

If a business can refuse service for someone who is offensive, or not wearing a shirt, etc., there must be some way to avoid the effort to destroy their business because of a discrimination charge. You know, some other way to do so without going the religious belief route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom