BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it

Subject: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 15 - 06:05 PM

From the Beeb: "A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.
A Belfast judge said, as a business, Ashers was not exempt from discrimination law."

Excellent. The bakery was operating as a very secular business for profit, not a religion. The ruling recognises that you can't bring your skewed religious beliefs into the public realm in order to discriminate against people. Opposing gay marriage is what you can do by putting your case, not by undermining the law of the land. A blow for common decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 15 - 06:08 PM

Agreed!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 15 - 06:22 PM

Education too often requires the rule of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 15 - 06:58 PM

Education requires curiosity, the acquisition of the skills required to grab knowledge and the grabbing of the knowledge. Having the law dangled over you (or, for that matter, a crucifix) gives you instruction, not education. The cake shop people have learned nothing. They are going to appeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 May 15 - 07:08 PM

I think I'd side with the cake shop on this one. Would the same principle require me to make a cake praising neo-Nazis if a customer ordered it? Another thread active now, discusses the idea of the wrath of God, an idea that is very distasteful to me. If a customer wanted it, would I be required to decorate a cake extolling the wrath of God? Or would an atheist be required to decorate a cake with religious images if the customer wanted it? Or must a wedding singer sing a song he hates at a wedding? I think the business owner should be able to politely say, "No, I don't want to do that."

I thought that was supposed to be one of the benefits of owning my own business - if I don't want to do a job, I don't think that that I, if I were a self-employed person, should have to do it I don't want to. And the customer has the right not to do business with me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Bizibod
Date: 19 May 15 - 07:22 PM

Joe, my thoughts exactly.
Since when did a cake turn into a banner ? Put flowers on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 15 - 07:31 PM

Well, unless the neo-Nazi cake was saying " Happy birthday Nick Griffin", it would be promoting hate speech, which is against the law. I would imagine that atheist cake shops the world over produce cakes to order with religious symbolism without demur. Or just differently-religious cake shops. Have you got examples of this having been an issue? What kind of hateful wedding songs have you in mind and are you talking about a hired performer here? The thing about the cake shop in question is that it was discriminating against a particular section of the community that has suffered discrimination for way too long, a fact that the law recognises. That is the focus of this issue. Suppose I was renting out a flat and I refused to let it to a black family because I don't like black people or think they would degrade the neighbourhood. Well, the flat is my business enterprise and I should be able to do what I like with it. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 19 May 15 - 07:52 PM

I suspect a business person can generally refuse to provide a service, or provide goods to customers for a business good reason. However, to do so soley based on reasons such the race, sex or sexual orientation of a customer was not a reasonable one-as it would be merely based on discrimination. The situation may be somewhat different if the business did not service the general public (a solely religious business).

While the case involved religion, I dont see the ruling as one solely based on a religious belief. It would be the same if an Athiest refused a similar service to a religious hetro fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 15 - 07:55 PM

Whilst watching the first qualifying round of the Eurovision Song Contest,
mrs punkfolkrocker entered into the spirit
and made a list of popular cakes classified by stereotypes of their most likely sexuality.

For example, Eccles cake and Rock cake were top contenders for least gay/probably most hetero.

But as she is a highly trained & responsible team leader in a caring public sector profession,
where inclusivity and equality of gender & sexuality is of paramount concern;
She qualified the list on the basis that appearances can be deceptive.

The Eccles could with equal probability also be the cake equivalent of the gay culture 'Bear'.

Further research will resume early tomorrow morning
at the cake counter of Tesco near the bus stop
on her way to work.😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 15 - 08:11 PM

Been a bit naughty on the cake front today. Had an Eccles cake earlier on then a massive slab of Bakewell tart later on, bought in the Fine Cheese Company shop in Bath. Had to buy something to sustain meself on the three-hour drive home...

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 15 - 10:16 PM

Joe... good point. Ed T.. good point.

On retrospect, I gotta go with Joe... my business is my business. Go somewhere else and don't tell me how I must run my business if I am not bothering you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 15 - 10:33 PM

Lincoln at Gettysburg said the civil war was a test of whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure.

Now we're engaged in another great civil war testing whether any nation can endure without a state religion. The answer appears to be "no." Apparently we need a common belief system in order to function as a society, and without an established church the government has to dictate that belief system in some other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 May 15 - 11:50 PM

Aren't there any other cake-shops in NI? I would have just told Asher's to shove their cake up their mean-spirited, pious arses, and gone somewhere else.

Or, better still, I'd have made my own bloody cake - mine are better than any shop-bought cakes anyway. And nobody can stop me putting any fecking slogan I like on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 15 - 12:08 AM

In fact I might make a nice rich fruit cake this weekend, ice it, and decorate it with the slogan, "Shove your cake up your arses, Asher's".

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 12:38 AM

I'd agree, backwoodsman. I wouldn't patronize a company that I knew discriminated against gay cake buyers, but I wouldn't take them to court over it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:14 AM

Hmmmm. If I owned a cake shop and someone wanted to order a distasteful, to me, decoration I might tell them of a cake shop down the street that would be better at it than I.

However, if I was the only cake shop in town? Suppose the desired decoration was of testicles and a penis? Would I comply?

Or if someone wanted a menorah and I was a christian, would I object to the decoration? A swastika? Of a 'colored jockey by the door post'?

I don't know for sure. I suspect though that given the ability to dicker and compromise we would come up with an agreeable alternative. Good humo(u)r can go a long way. On the face of it I don't believe I would turn away the business even if I felt compelled to tuck a note into the paperwork stating my misgivings and suggesting an alternative for future orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:44 AM

I agree it's a thorny one, Ebbie, but my point is that, just as the trader can be choosy about what he/she puts on a cake, the customer can be equally choosy about where he/she spends his money.

I agree with Joe, as the customer, I'd vote with my feet rather than turn it into a litigation issue. But that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one who felt discriminated against, and the UK does have reasonably robust anti-discrimination laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:47 AM

So, Joe, can you honestly say that any business should be able to discriminate against any section of society if they so chose? Should a landlords be able to advertise a room for rent as 'No Blacks or Irish'? Should a publican be able to refuse service to Gypsies and Pikeys? Come on, answer honestly now, if you feel this shop should be able to discriminate against gay people, where would you draw the line and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:00 AM

"Would the same principle require me to make a cake praising neo-Nazis"
No comparison - one is dedicated to promoting hate - the other to equality.
What if the bakery decided to refuse to accept the order of a black person on principle, or, considering where it is, a Catholic - should they be allowed to do so on the basis of their conscience?
In a couple of days time we will be voting in a referendum to decide whether to put gays on an equal footing with re#he rest of us regarding marriage - and in line with the rest of the people of these islands (other than the British bit of Ireland, which still remains in the last century) - it is of no surprise that the church here is now pulling out the stops to prevent that happening - the last twitches of a dying dinosaur, hopefully.
It's a sobering thought that homosexuality wasn't decriminalised here until 1993 - 22 years ago - time for Ireland to move on.
As the Irish times puts it -
"The answer is simple. Equality is an absolute, not a parcelling out of progress by the powerful. To suggest that civil partnership is enough for gay people is to say: "Thus far and no further." It is to set limits and boundaries on one group in society – a minority – based on what may be comfortable for another group within society. That's not how equality works."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Thompson
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 AM

A fine crop of straw men today, and only four posts before Godwin arrives!
I, personally, moi, myself, would have told the bakery where to go, and would have found a nicer bakery to make my cake. But the couple who commissioned the cake feel differently and have an absolute right to take legal action against discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:39 AM

OK, note the facts of the case carefully: "Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan." The bakery refused to make a cake carrying an image of Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie below the phrase 'Support Gay Marriage.' The bakery refused to make the cake supporting an issue, not discriminating against the sexual orientation of a customer. It is my understanding that gay marriage is not yet legal in Northern Ireland, so it is still an active political issue.

Making a wedding cake for a gay couple celebrating their legal marriage, would be a different matter.

But if it's a slogan promoting an issue, am I bound to produce a representation of that slogan that I disagree with? If I'm a printer, am I bound to print placards for a political party I detest, or against a political candidate I support?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:58 AM

"and have an absolute right to take legal action against discrimination."
And, thankfully, have won their case.
I onder if people find comparisons between campaigning for gay rights and Neo-Nazism s offensive as I do?
I do hope it was just a poor choice of words.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Thompson
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:14 AM

To lighten the tone a bit…

In Ireland, we're voting the day after tomorrow (22.5.2015) on the right of gay people to marry. The Hailo taxi system have advertised that they'll give a lift to a polling station for free, up to a value of €15, to those who wish to vote. Here's their funny and thought-provoking take on the poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:27 AM

The mistake the baker made was stating why he refused the job.
If he didn't want to make the cake, for what ever reason, he should simply have said "no thank you" and suggested they try some one else.
Any one can turn down a job,the offence is in the way you do it

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:33 AM

It's difficult. In principle, I agree a business should be able to choose who it does business with. It is also, on the whole, a good thing when a business chooses to act ethically. The difficulty arises when their ethical values differ from yours, and where disagreement becomes discrimination.

However this case isn't about ethics, which are personal, it's about the law. It's against the law to discriminate against certain groups, even for ethical reasons. Businesses have to abide by a lot of laws, many of which aren't particularly helpful to them, and this is just one of them.

Business should operate within a moral and ethical framework. However it is possible to do wrong by doing right. These bakers presumably felt they were acting ethically by refusing to do something which contravened their moral code. I guess the lesson for business owners is that they have to think more widely than their own personal moral values and consider those of the wider society, especially where those are incorporated into legislation. If you are in business you may sometimes have to do things you are personally uncomfortable with - if you don't like that then perhaps you're in the wrong business.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: banjoman
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:38 AM

The bakery should have a sign displayed stating " The management reserves the right to refuse to accept cake orders without explanation"
I tend to agree with the points put by Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:50 AM

The bakery refused to make the cake supporting an issue, not discriminating against the sexual orientation of a customer.

That is a very fine line there, Joe, but I do take your point. However, it is only on the shop's say so that it was the slogan they objected to and the judge believed that the discrimination was on the grounds of sexual orientation. Neither you nor I were there so we can only go off what has been reported by the press. Unless something comes up to counter it, I, for one, will believe the judges ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:51 AM

Joe is right.
It was about an issue, not equality.
To believe marriage should continue to be for a man and a woman, as it has always been, is a legitimate view held by many including gay folk.

The shop makes no attempt to discriminate against gay people.
It merely refused to produce promotional material for a cause they happen to oppose.

Opposing gay marriage is what you can do by putting your case, not by undermining the law of the land.

They did not think that they were undermining the law of the land.
I am surprised that the court decided that they were and the appeal may well be upheld.

Personally I approve of gay marriage and I think it will soon be universally accepted, but I do not expect everyone to come around to it on the same day that I did.
That is just intolerant of the views and beliefs of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:20 AM

Guardian 40 minutes ago,

"Gareth Lee, who brought the claim with assistance from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, claimed he had suffered two forms of discrimination: on grounds of his sexual orientation and on grounds of his political opinion."
" Their first response to Lee's claim was they were not discriminating against Lee as a gay man; indeed, they had no knowledge of his sexual orientation. They would willingly have made him a cake without a "support gay marriage" graphic and they would equally have refused to make such a cake for a heterosexual customer."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:31 AM

Joe is right.
It was about an issue, not equality.
...
Their first response to Lee's claim was they were not discriminating against Lee as a gay man; indeed, they had no knowledge of his sexual orientation.

The judge did not believe that. Also from the Guardian -


The judge added: "I believe the defendants did have the knowledge that the plaintiff was gay."

Outlining her reasons why this was a case of discrimination, Brownlie said: "The defendants are not a religious organisation. They conduct a business for profit. As much as I acknowledge their religious beliefs, this is a business to provide service to all. The law says they must do that."

In the absence of any evidence that the judge was wrong I will believe her. She is an expert in the field. We are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:42 AM

Jim, when I consider issues, I try to think about how I would react if I were forced to do something I considered offensive - like doing something in support of neo-Nazism. I would suppose the baker reacted similarly to being forced to support gay marriage.

And although I don't agree with him, I can then understand how he feels.

I guess I'm just not as convinced of my own self-righteousness as some people are. If you were offended by my "comparisons between campaigning for gay rights and Neo-Nazism," be assured that my contrasting of the two issues was intentional. But I do support gay rights, and I do not support neo-Nazism - that's the point.

I think it's a wonderful thing to celebrate gay rights, but not to force reluctant people to do the same. It looks like the battle for gay marriage is being won, and being won quickly. But if we shove that victory down our opponents' throats, they may vomit it back up at us.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:59 AM

What tosh. What heterosexual customer would have requested such a cake? That is just an easy thing to say, isn't it, like saying, well, they could always find another cake shop. I hate you blacks/Muslims/Jews and I won't let you rent my flat, but I'm sure you'll find somewhere else that will have you. No, I won't marry this gay couple, as that would offend my ethics, but I'm sure they'll find someone else round the corner who will. You don't get let off that easily. As for the "ethics" of the cake business, I wonder who they bank with and whether they checked that that institution makes all its investment decisions on such moral high ground. Sorry, Joe et al., but there are some very slippery morals in play here. There are many aspects of life in which we accept limits on our rights to be picky, as we live in communities that are diverse in their human makeup. I think we call it tolerance. I don't get to withhold tax because I don't like Trident or because I detest free schools. You do business with all manner of people and your red line should be to say I'll deal with what's legal, decent and what stops short of infringing others' freedoms. Otherwise, put on a cheerful face, get on with the job then go home and reflect on your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:02 AM

That was a response to Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:10 AM

Jim, when I consider issues, I try to think about how I would react if I were forced to do something I considered offensive - like doing something in support of neo-Nazism. I would suppose the baker reacted similarly to being forced to support gay marriage.

And although I don't agree with him, I can then understand how he feels.

Then try to understand how the person discriminated against might be feeling. In my view, the need to put right the sorry history of centuries of discrimination against gay people trumps the delicate feelings of a cake-making Christian bigot a thousand times over.

And your continuing equivalence of neo-Nazism and support for gay marriage is giving me bellyache, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:29 AM

"Jim, when I consider issues, I try to think about how I would react if I were forced to do something I considered offensive "
Sorry Joe - you can apply this to anything, say, lke serving a black man or a Catholic to some strange people - a line has to be drawn and that line must protect a significant minority (at least, we believe it is a minority - prejudice makes it virtually impossible to know how many gays there actually are)
Why should people who find black people offensive not be allowed to discriminate against them/ - that seems to be the logic of your argument.
Our laws have moved, albeit reluctantly, to attempting to curb prejudice toward races, communities and those that are deemed to be 'different' and therefore offensive.
Even in soemwhat redneck Northern Ireland, the behaviour of this businessman serving the general public has been deemed unacceptable - well done them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:38 AM

What seems to be missing from this discussion so far is the fact that the 'customer' was a gay rights activist.
To what extent might his request have been a matter of 'pushing the boundaries'? Was he actively seeking a test case?

Just asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:39 AM

Dead right, Nigel. These activists, who are fighting a centuries-old tide of bigotry and discrimination, are such nuisances, aren't they? Let's look at it another way round. Without "test cases" the bigotry holds sway for another ten, twenty, thirty years? Let sleeping dogs lie, eh? Just shrug and find another cake shop, eh? But, whatever you do, don't make a noise?

I don't know whether the chap was an activist looking for a test case or not. But, if he was, then I say all power to his elbow for hurrying along the cause of getting rid of discrimination against gay people. We make progress because of people like him. We stay where we are by doing that peculiarly British thing of "not making a fuss".

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:41 AM

"Was he actively seeking a test case?"
The cake was ordered for a private function to mark 'International Anti Homophobia Day'.
Not that it matters - the bakers would have failed the test anyway.
It's worth remembering that it's well within living memory that, not only were some businesses in Northern Ireland refusing service to Catholics because they 'kicked with the wrong foot', but politicians were actually calling for a boycott of all Catholic businesses.
Attempts to hold a function on say, a United Ireland might well lead to your home being petrol bombed (some of my family experienced this for being Catholics living in the wrong part of town)   
There were pubs in my home town of Liverpool who would refuse service to anybody thought to be Catholic or at least, you woould be quite likely to find something nasty ploating in your pint.
But, as the song says:
"These are more enlightened days, Cru#l men and savage ways we left long ago" - sort of!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:41 AM

Does it matter, Nigel? Whatever his motivation, Mr. Lee made a reasonable request for goods which Asher's were perfectly capable of providing, and they discriminated against him on account of his support for a cause which they oppose - and very likely also on account of his homosexuality, although that's not the main thrust of his complaint.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:42 AM

Complete red herring, Nigel. Why single out the customer as being potentially at fault? The shop could have been equally looking for a test case. They did accept the order at first and then changed their minds. Who says he was a gay rights activist anyway? The press? Just because he asked for a gay rights message on his wedding cake? Just go by the facts which, as far as I can see, the judge has.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:43 AM

Cross-posted with Steve and Jim - sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 07:53 AM

"Cross-posted with Steve and Jim - sorry"
Don't apologies - the more, the merrier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:00 AM

Steve,
What heterosexual customer would have requested such a cake?

Lots!
There are many straight people who campaign for gay marriage.

Dave, The judge seemed to say that it was only an offence if motivated by the will to discriminate against gay people.
He was claiming to know what was in their heads.
They denied that was in their heads.

Jim,
Why should people who find black people offensive not be allowed to discriminate against them/ - that seems to be the logic of your argument.

That was not the logic of anyone's argument.
Discrimination is wrong.
Disagreeing that marriage be changed to include another group is not.

How about a cake saying "Support child marriage" or "Support incestuous marriage" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:08 AM

Nice of Joe Offer to liken gay people to Nazis.

Joe says he sides with the bakery for that reason. Presumably he'd side with them if they didn't want to do a cake for a black couple or mixed race? How's about a disabled couple, they offend God botherers too eh?

You really have a side to you that doesn't bear thinking about eh Joe?

The freedom to discriminate against others is not a freedom. It is contrary to the very discrimination legislation that religious nonsense clings to when it suits them .

Love thy neighbour? Hypocritical swine to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:10 AM

"How about a cake saying "Support child marriage" or "Support incestuous marriage" ?"
Both are illegal and are an affront to common decency, as is comparing them to demanding a right that is aimed to introduce equality - every bit as offensive as the 'Neo-Nazi suggestion, as far as I'm concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:11 AM

Keith, you have a way of degrading discussions. You know damn well that child marriage, etc., is illegal and that any prospect of it would be highly damaging to children. Gay marriage is on the agenda for becoming legal in more and more places and it damages nobody and it does away with one nasty piece of discrimination. If you have documentary evidence that lots of heterosexual people order cakes with messages campaigning for gay marriage, let's have it. Though by persisting with that line you are avoiding the point of the argument. I don't wish to waste any more time on it, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:15 AM

40 years ago when I started first year of OND Business studies and Economics A level..

A simple crucial mantra of capitalism that was drilled into us from day one was..

"The customer is King / sovereign; the customer is always right"

Of course, that was at the same time as shops and cafes in Glastonbury
openly displayed signs on their doors

"No Hippies"...

Then there were the early 1980s reports in a certain south west local newspaper

As near word for word as best as I can remember...

"Sand dunes invaded by homosexuals of the worst kind"


How much progress and enlightenment since then...???

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:19 AM

Private or corporate business, religious owner/manager or not, discrimination is clearly discrimination. Where sexual discrimination is illegal, the law is the law-regardless of personal opinion (or, reason for it). A similar USA case in Colorado the legal ruling was the same.


Similar USA ruling 

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:20 AM

Well done Musket.
That should get the thread closed.

Jim, gay marriage was considered an affront to public decency until recently.
Well within our lifetimes.
Public decency is a constantly changing set of values.

Different countries have different age limits for marriage, and until modern times there were no limits in any country.
"Support younger marriage" ?
Many cultures practice child marriage still.
It is not an affront to everyone's decency.

Why is it an affront to public decency if siblings seek to marry?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:32 AM

Steve,
You know damn well that child marriage, etc., is illegal and that any prospect of it would be highly damaging to children.

Illegality is not an issue.
Gay marriage is illegal where this happened.

Child marriage is legal in Scotland (16) .
In Spain the age of consent is just 13.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:39 AM

Keith A of Hertford said that supporting marriage as being between a man and a woman is a legitimate view.

It may be a view but like rape, robbery and fraud it is a view that society has set rules to protect people from. A cake pointing out the right of people to carry out their lives normally is not only legitimate but in the context of Northern Ireland, which has politicians coming out with the most amazingly sick religious bigotry, it is also needed to point out that bigotry is not needed, wanted or necessary in a progressive society.

Look on the bright side. Being where it is, you could easily be reading of a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a catholic marrying a protestant.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, men can marry men, women can marry women, blacks can marry whites and disabled people can marry non disabled people in any gender mix you want.

I'm fed up of God botherers saying people with a disability that precludes getting pregnant shouldn't be able to marry. I sincerely hope their appeal bankrupts them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:45 AM

"Jim, gay marriage was considered an affront to public decency until recently."
As was the natural fact of being gay - in fact, up to comparatively recently it was a punishable criminal offence and there are those who wish that was still the case - just as there are those who would with to return to capital punishment, dog-fighting and bear-baiting.
The present campaign seeks to close an anomaly in the law and, not surprisingly, much of the opposition is generated by celibate mystics who would retain the right they have had to instruct us on how we should behave in our own beds.   
"Why is it an affront to public decency if siblings seek to marry?"
Incest is historically one of the great taboos of society for all sorts of reasons, cultural and practical.
I have to say, I find this discussion more and more revealing the longer it goes on - pity we're going to have to nip it in the bud for fear of closing yet another thread- unless that is your wish, of course!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:46 AM

What if the cake had been for the National Man/Boy Love Association, with a slogan advocating abolition of age of consent laws? Would that change anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:52 AM

""Why is it an affront to public decency if siblings seek to marry?""

Could it be that some of the offsprings may become public nuisances and annoying to others, clogging up chatlines with dinosaurian opinions (not carbon dating that one) -that may seem contrary to logic?

Disclaimer: Just speculating, with no person in mind), since it was asked.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:54 AM

"What if the cake had been for the National Man/Boy Love Association, with a slogan advocating abolition of age of consent laws? "

But, it clearly wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:55 AM

I'm sorry, Keith, but If you continue to cherrypick points from my posts then you are degrading this conversation, for reasons best known to yourself. I made a very clear contrast between child marriage and marriage in terms of a lot more than illegality. The central issue concerning the cake is that there is a campaign to legalise gay marriage. There are no such moves to legalise child marriage. Gay marriage hurts no-one and makes the partners happy. Child marriage is abusive, exploitative and Indecent. Why don't you demonstrate to us that you can actually see the difference instead of pretending to be some kind of idiotic devil's advocate?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:56 AM

Dave, The judge seemed to say that it was only an offence if motivated by the will to discriminate against gay people.
He was claiming to know what was in their heads.
They denied that was in their heads.

The judge weighed the evidence and believed one party over another. That is what judges do. They make judgements. She was there, neither you or I were. She heard all the evidence and decided in favour of the plaintiff. Good enough for me.

Gay marriage is illegal where this happened.

No it isn't. It is unlawful but not, as far as I know, subject to any criminal prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:57 AM

Child marriage and gay marriage is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:04 AM

The minimum age rules for marriage in Spain will be the same as in most other European countries by July. The age of consent is also being raised. Perhaps if someone in that country had baked a cake campaigning for it to be raised it would have been raised sooner. Maybe they tried to, but it is a very religious country....

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Would it be acceptable to decorate a cake with the image of prophet Mohammed?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:29 AM

It would be legal in this country. It would be illegal to physically attack someone for doing it. I can't imagine there being much demand. Still. Your somewhat mischievous line of questioning gets a straight answer, whether it deserves it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:29 AM

The cake was for a private event to commemorate a significant date in the gay Calendar - describing it as part of a campaign is not unlike describing Christmas as part of a Christian campaign, or Thanksgiving an American campaign.
As it happens, it doesn't matter - it was discrimination and was judged to be just that - a fact that should be cause for celebration and not 'back-to-the-good-old-days' bickering.
Hopefully, Friday will show another giant step for mankind (and womankind, of course)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Mo the caller
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:01 AM

I'm with Joe on this one.
They weren't discriminating against a person. They didn't say the wouldn't make a cake. But the slogan went against their beliefs. No law should force you to violate your convictions though it might tell you how you can express them.

Trouble is, your/my religion might be my/your blasphemy; my/your right to choose might be your/my anathema. A minefield.

Personally I don't think the law should tell you how to live your life, or how to run your business.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:06 AM

cakes for promoting Beastiality marriage and Necrophila marriage...???

there..

saved GUEST the trouble of scratching his/her head for more daft exaggerated provocative examples...😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:09 AM

A good one, punkfolkrocker, LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:21 AM

yeah... at risk of over-egging the cake...



If I wanted to marry my gay dead disabled brother.... and his dog

[most of which is actually factually true]

I think I'd get our old mum to dust off the cake tin and give it go...

Would save a lot of aggro....😜

Gawd.. imagine if we actually could marry, then decided to try to adopt a kid...!!!???😬

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:26 AM

Gay marriage getting your goat?



man marries goat 

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:51 AM

Your religion and your right to choose is inviolably yours. Your right to restrict the rights of others is severely compromised by the obstinate fact that we all live in very mixed societies. You might want to force your religious views on other people or prevent them from expressing theirs. You might be trying to stop them from living in a way that has been arbitrarily and unsupportably condemned by authority figures such as holy men. The cake shop was perpetuating unfair and bigoted discrimination on grounds of religion. If the refusal was not, as some here claimed, discrimination against the customer, then matters in one respect are even more serious: it's discrimination against a notion that strives for justice for victims of bigotry. The cake in itself is a tiny matter in the scheme of things but the issue it represents is huge. A good outcome means progress towards justice for gay people. And, frankly, anyone in today's world who shouts "blasphemy!" is someone who parted company from me, metaphorically speaking, a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:52 AM

Mo - The judge said they were discriminating against a person. On what grounds do you disagree with the judge? At the risk of repeating myself none of us were there while the judge was.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:09 AM

So many theoretical issues....

The case was 'decided' in court, which obviously didn't solve the issue. It was one judge's opinion. Another judge might have taken Joe Offer's position.

Me? I think the baker should have just offered to sell a blank cake and a decorating kit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:12 AM

So Joe, Gnu, et. al.: If I "believe" that interracial marriage is wrong, I can discriminate against people on that basis? If I "believe" that Catholics are part of a Papal Plot to take over the world, I can discriminate on thet basis, too? What if I "believe" that Jews bear a collective responsibility for the killing of Christ I can refuse them service?

Discrimination is discrimination despite the pretext one chooses to use to justify it.

And its wrong.

Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:15 AM

No law should force you to violate your convictions

Even if your "convictions" are wrong? So if I "believe" that Black folks are congenitally inferior..........

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:27 AM

Err.. We are talking marriage in Northern Ireland. If my husband and I, who were married in the Netherlands and live in Scotland are in Northern Ireland, as we were last year, we are a married couple there, recognised as such and every bit as legitimate as in any other EU country, including those that do not carry out the ceremony, such as, till later this week, Eire.

To say what next, marry your dog? is rather sick. I am married. Does anybody have any issue with that? Perhaps it a legitimate view to say I don't recognise Joe Offer's marriage, or Keith A of Hertford's marriage? I don't though. I recognise their marriage and hope they recognise mine. It is the least anybody can ask of society, a little word called respect.

I think the bakery is a business. That has a legal status. It means undertaking to work within the law. The judge saw this. Bill, your post above is awful. Perhaps Hallmark cards should just sell blank cards and a felt tip to inter racial couples who need cards? How about a selection that disabled people must only buy from?

If being in business goes against your beliefs, don't offer goods or services to the public because equality laws say, quite rightly that you offer goods or services irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation.

I have problems seeing how this thread is even debatable? Have those who support the bakery's stance thought about what they are supporting? The right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Religion that is protected from discrimination by the same laws. Nowhere does it say you can discriminate because your imaginary friend tells you to. Wicked old men in frocks are telling you to...

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:45 AM

"Bill, your post above is awful"

I should have posted a pic of my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek....

My REAL problem is, that with my history of philosophy & logic, I see all the sub-themes and implications of most positions. I do NOT 'like' the position the bakery took, and I would personally boycott it and buy cakes from more reasonable businesses. I just don't see an easy way to navigate all the byways of possible scenarios various people have mentioned. The courts have a lot to do besides adjudicating cases of morality in cake decorating.
Now if the bakery put samples of their art in the window advocating anti-gay themes or hate speech, I would think they SHOULD be taken to court.
I do believe that there are many bakeries that would happily fill the order... and more power to THEM!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:48 AM

The US and the UK are constitutionally very different.

In the US there is federal law and there is also state law. State laws differ from each other. Neither federal law nor any state law have the same statutory provisions about equality and about discrimination as the UK does.

US commentators may have views about what UK law SHOULD be, but unless they have specifically addressed the relevant UK law their comments are unlikely to illuminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:50 AM

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.

The provisions of EU law, and of the ECHR insofar as implemented in the UK or where the UK law is not fully clear may also be relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 12:13 PM

"No law should force you to violate your convictions"
Pretty well covered by Greg's response as far as I'm concerned.
An interesting dilemma in respect to another piece of medievalism that was partially dealt with following the death of a young woman who died as a result of being denied a pregnancy termination due largely to religious pressures.
In the light of this event, the government was forced to tinker with the laws forbidding all forms of termination - still some way behind the rest of the 'civilised' world.
Despite the change of law, there has been pressure to exempt some doctors because of their religious beliefs.
It seems to me that people holding such beliefs should not be allowed to be doctors - it's not hard to imagine a hard-pressed hospital having to carry out a life-saving termination because there are not enough doctors on hand prepared to carry one out.
If they can't guarantee to do their job they shouldn't be employed - pretty much like not putting a Jehovah's Witness in charge of a blood-bank.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Fergie
Date: 20 May 15 - 12:15 PM

In the European Union there are fundamental laws that make it an offence to discriminate against people on the basis of: gender, religious creed, ethnic background, race, skin-colour, marriage status, sexual-orientation. There is also a category of laws around the issue of hate speech and incitement to hatred. It is against the law to discriminate against a person for being gay, but in general (within reason) it is not against the law to discriminate on the basis of one political background.

It is also fundamental to understanding this case that the bakery in question initially accepted the order for the cake, but later informed the customer that the bakery had changed it's mind and now was refusing to process the order on the basis that for religious reasons they would not make a cake that had anything to do with homosexuals. It was this combination of factors that brought the judge to the conclusion that the bakery was discriminating against the customer on the basis of sexual-orientation and was therefore attempting to put itself above the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 12:47 PM

Being serious for a few seconds...

My recently deceased sibling was a militant gay & disabled rights activist.
Strongly involved in various campaign groups
and local authority disabled access & services liaison committees.

As much as we shared very similar values and political views,
we weren't that close due to sibling friction & personality clash..

Sibling was a person who was troubled and difficult to get along with,
and inclined to be obnoxiously over zealous
when confronting real or imagined discrimination.

I can't help wondering how much a less antagonistic overcompensating personality
would have made a more effective campaigner ?

I just don't know.

Maybe sibling was exactly the right kind of uncompromising personality
to get the job done properly ???

Certainly not the kind of person for a bigoted cake shop to get in a fight with !!!

Sibling would definitely applaud this well won legal victory.



[sorry to over use the impersonal term 'sibling',
but I'm still over cautious about giving away too much real identifying personal info]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:10 PM

"Nice of Joe Offer to liken gay people to Nazis."

A couple of Mudcatters were offended by Joe O's simile. Joe doesn't need my defending him but his stance is easily understood when one takes literally what he said: (paraphrased) Going by what would offend me, I can understand the offense taken by others.

I have long done the same using cigarette smoking as an example. If I want to understand addiction -of whatever stripe - all I need do is remember how difficult it was for me to quit smoking. Then I can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:21 PM

I agree that if the order was initially accepted, it makes a later refusal more difficult , but I understand the decision was afterwards taken on ethical Christian principles by management, who may not have been present when the order was accepted by the shop worker ......admittedly conjecture, ..but a probable scenario.   As others have said, and ashers also asserted, the discrimination was about the message, not the customer. I have heard that the b an b owners finally won their appeal, and I hope asshurs do too. Of course, it may come to the state where Christians will either dilute their convictions, or go out of business, but till such time, they are entitled to contest such rulings by all lawful means.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:29 PM

Joe's point is quite strong except for the change that occurs when you install yourself in a place of business open to the public.

In any case making your conscience up to refuse another's happiness is a pretty dismal state of affairs in an individual, methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:58 PM

Ebbie. It is difficult to change what makes you what you are. If I had been brought up to believe some people were inferior or that my adherence to a superstition precludes my being objective, I'd possibly try to reconcile what I thought to be morally right with what others think it to be too.

I don't expect people to understand my attraction to my husband nor indeed my earlier boyfriends. In the same way I don't have those feelings towards women. Don't get me wrong, I was led to believe I was abnormal and at university I started chatting up women to see if I might "grow out of it"

I didn't because I am me. (I am what I am, if you want the stereotype.)

The anger I feel and from reading posts, that another Musket has also expressed is that Joe Offer wishes to be taken seriously. If that is the case, I would be mocking him by making allowances.

Keith A of Hertford on the other hand doesn't exhibit such intelligence so his awful comments can be dismissed. It is when otherwise credible people come out with what they did that makes me shake my head.

Bill. If we could see each other. I'd see your tongue in cheek but we can't. I know only too well that posts can be taken literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Long Firm Freddie
Date: 20 May 15 - 01:58 PM

The full judgment in the case is given here:


Judgment



LFF

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:07 PM

Musket: Nice of Joe Offer to liken gay people to Nazis.

Musket, I likened my disdain for neo-Nazis to the disdain someone else might have for gay marriage.
There's quite a difference there.

And again: Joe says he sides with the bakery for that reason.

I certainly did not say that I would side with the bakery. Indeed, I said that I would boycott the bakery. Still, I do not think that the bakery should be compelled by law to do something in support of a cause it did not support. This is vastly different from refusing to serve a gay person. If the merchant were to refuse to sell any product in his catalog to a gay person, would be clearly unlawful. To compel the merchant to create a product to specifications he could not support, is another matter.

But distinctions like these are clearly lost to those single-minded souls who cannot understand any perspective but their own.

So, in winning a lawsuit against the baker, did the plaintiff gain any supporters for the cause of gay marriage? And most specifically, did the plaintiff convert the baker into a supporter of gay marriage?

I think that the battle for legal recognition of gay marriage will soon be won in most of the the Western world. The goal now should be to win the hearts and minds of people so that gay marriage comes to be considered to be completely acceptable and normal in our society. That will take time and patience - just as it has taken time and patience for interracial marriage to become acceptable, long after it became legal. Winning lawsuits creates enemies - you'll never make a person into a friend or supporter by winning a lawsuit against him.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:13 PM

Maybe not, Joe -- But if one must always wait until one has won one's adversary's 'heart & mind', then I fear it might now & again result in rather a long wait... Meanwhile, the cake might have got a trifle stale.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:13 PM

Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did.

The judge thought they did, but judges are fallible Dave and this one had only the same evidence that we have.

They did not refuse to supply a cake. That would be discrimination.
They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support.
That is not discrimination.
You are allowed to do that.
Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade.
That is what they were asked to do, and the request could have been made by a straight customer so refusing was not discrimination.

Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis.
The suggestion is pure malice.
He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of, so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:27 PM

Whatever the legal situation here (and I'm biased so I like what the judge decided), once again we have the depressing situation in this thread of bigotry being staunchly defended. The people in the cake shop may not like the notion of gay marriage, but they are wrong and the world is leaving them behind. They are fully entitled to go home and simmer about it but they are not entitled to behave in this hurtful manner. They deserve all the flak they get if they proceed to appeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:32 PM

By the way, I generally do not patronize businesses that advertise themselves as "Christian," because using religion as a sales promotion gimmick makes me gag (and because those who advertise their "Christianity" are generally not in accord with my view of what Christianity should be); and I certainly do not patronize any business known to support causes I consider to be oppressive.

I do shop at WalMart, though. Hell, nobody's perfect....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:46 PM

Well I could not disagree with the baker more fully, however, I have had clients that I refused because.. Well they we assholes that I didn't want to get involved with. Had nothing to do with any beliefs other than they were known assholes with a track record of shady business transactions. A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime because you can always go elsewhere

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:53 PM

The people in the cake shop may not like the notion of gay marriage, but they are wrong and the world is leaving them behind.

It is our opinion that they are wrong, but they are entitled to their opinion.
No-one can be forced to make campaign material for a cause they disavow.

Would you do it Steve?
Should you be criminalised for refusing?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:56 PM

Are these Christians stupid? If they succeed in making it legal to discriminate on religious grounds, it will be perfectly legal (or at least logical) to discriminate against Christians. Why are they taking legal action without thinking the issue through to the next question that naturally occurs, and being appalled by the answer?

Joe, I admire you greatly, but you're wrong on this one. You are promoting legal discrimination. You haven't answered the question about whether or not businesses should be legally permitted to refuse service to black people. Where do you draw the line with discrimination?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:57 PM

"Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did."
And were found guilty of doing so - so it's a hypothetical statement
"but judges are fallible "
Especially when they come up with the 'wrong' decision
Accused people tend to tell lies.
"They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support."
Wi;dly inaccurate again
"Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, had wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the slogan Support Gay Marriage for a private function marking International Anti Homophobia Day."
"That is not discrimination."
Yes it is and it was found to be.
"Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade."
Taking customers orders is in whatever shape or form as long as it is within their capabilities and conforms to law and decency.
"Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis"
Yes he did
"The suggestion is pure malice."
No it isn't
"He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of,"
You are now putting words in his mouth to defend the indefensible - it was, at very best, an appalling choice of words, typical of homophic but certainly nothing I would have associated with Joe - before now.
"so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with."
They were not asked to produce campaign material, they were asked to bake a cake for a private function - the customer specified exactly what was wanted and they refused - simple as that.
The facts of the case state quite clearly that they refused the order because they disapproved of the customer's sexual orientation - the culprit admitted the same and was found guilty of discrimination for having done so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:58 PM

I likened my disdain for neo-Nazis to the disdain someone else might have for gay marriage.

There's a reason - or rather many reasons- to "disdain" Nazis. What's the excuse for "disdaining" gay marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:59 PM

ok.. I've stopped being serious... sort of...

what if... err.. what if a baker agreed to do the job but refused to accept the customer's desired artwork
for fear of contravening Sesame Street character ownership copyright.

Seriously, how much more farcial could the situation get
if the gay couple could now be remotely at risk of being sued by Sesame St !!!???😬

That's the trouble, problems can escalate when lawyers and media
start getting involved in a petty, but politically symbolic dispute......

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:00 PM

A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime

Dan, I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but surely you don't actually believe it would be OK for a restaurant to refuse to serve black folks? Or white folks, for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:05 PM

It isn't against the law to discriminate against assholes. However there are other categories who it illegal to discriminate against.

If you are in business and providing a service to the public the law requires you to behave in a number of ways. One of them is not to discriminate on certain grounds. If that puts you in conflict with your personal beliefs you might find that difficult, but you should set those beliefs aside in order to comply with the law. If you find that too difficult, then you should find another way of earning a living.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:07 PM

Agreed, Greg. Or to refuse to admit women.

Keith, for fuck's sake read the Act, then you might stop talking shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:08 PM

Who is disdaining gay marriage Greg?
Like many people, the bakers believe that marriage should remain only for people not closely related, conforming to the local age restriction and of opposite sex.
They are entitled to that view, and should not be forced by anti-discrimination law to produce campaign material for a cause they disavow.
They did not refuse to make and decorate a cake, only to turn it into a piece of propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 PM

Richard, does the Act really make it illegal for a baker to refuse to supply campaign materials just because they are in cake form?
If it does it is an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 PM

No I don't Greg but in this day and age the outcry of good people would put them out of business which I suspect would and should happen to the bakery

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:16 PM

They are not making campaign material. They are baking a cake. The only people who are going to see and/or eat the bloody thing are people who agree with its sentiment (which, let's remind ourselves, is hardly inflammatory, unless of course you're of a particular rather sad mindset). And of course they are entitled to their deluded opinion. Nobody said they weren't. But they are not entitled to act on that opinion to the detriment of decent people who wish to lead normal lives free of being discriminated against on account of the way they are made.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:22 PM

They are entitled to that view . . .

Not legally if they act on that view in the marketplace. They can believe anything they want. They just don't get to discriminate against others based on those beliefs. Keith, you also haven't answered the question about whether or not a business should be allowed to refuse service to black people. Put up or shut up, please. Where do you draw the line with discrimination?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:23 PM

"Me? I think the baker should have just offered to sell a blank cake and a decorating kit."

The wisdom of Soloman.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:35 PM

Is he any relation to Solomon?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:37 PM

Cousins I think. I don't know, twinkies would work for a wedding. I love twinkies, goes back to my college days.. And weed

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:38 PM

Ya know a cake with weed in it could really improve sales I think

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:53 PM

""So, in winning a lawsuit against the baker, did the plaintiff gain any supporters for the cause of gay marriage? And most specifically, did the plaintiff convert the baker into a supporter of gay marriage?""

It seems that the point of the legal matter flew right over your head, Joe O. Like with the hard fought civil rights cases in the USA on racial discrimination, the intent is definately not to convert those charged with discrimination nor like thinking folks.


""A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime because you can always go elsewhere""

It seem that I heard that type of reasoning before, in earlier years related to blacks in the USA and elswhere. Odd to see it today to justify what was clear legal decision on a publically-operated business discriminating against a person based in his sexual rientation (btw, legal decisions in most nations are not merely based on a judges personal opinion on a matter).

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Fergie
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:56 PM

A careful reading of the judges Judgement reveals the following:

Irrespective of your religious beliefs, it is unlawful for a company you control that supplies services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

If the required message on the cake was to have been in support of heterosexual marriage then the company would have supplied the goods.

Therefore the customer was discriminated against on the basis that he supported gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:00 PM

"Is he any relation to Solomon?"

Old eagle eye you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:56 PM

Keith, for fuck's sake read the Act, then you might stop talking shit.

Only if the Act was written by eminent, living historians who post to blogs on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:16 PM

Absolutely spot on, Fergie.

Pete admittedly conjecture, ..but a probable scenario.   As others have said, and ashers also asserted, the discrimination was about the message, not the customer.

It is conjecture. It is a possible scenario, not probable. The judge agreed that it was discrimination against the customer. Read Fergie's post above. Read the ruling linked to or even skip right to the end where it says

Applying this reasoning, I find that the 1st Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for unlawful discrimination contrary to the provisions of the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order and cannot rely on the protection afforded by Art 9 of the Convention.

I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.   I would ask Counsel to address me on the issue of damages.

It is simple. It was judged to be discrimination and therefore it was. Unless another judge rules it was not there is no denying the fact and even then it could still be overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:44 PM

Right on Fergie.

It is puzzling that logical thinking and compassion is limited when challenges to traditional views related to religion arises? One expects it to arise in some repressive traditional religious cultures. But, when it it is closer to home, it does challenge the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:58 PM

repressive traditional religious cultures

e.g., fundamentalist "Christianity"[sic]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:47 PM

repressive traditional religious cultures

e.g., like Islam (surely)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:01 PM

Yes, by all means, like many "traditional organized religions" - most of 'em have the extreme end, that do not escape the repressive definition, in one manner or another. Odd, how human intervention tends to skew the definitions of rather compassionate original messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:20 PM

e.g., like Islam (surely)

Wrong. Like fundamentalist "Islam"[sic] perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:30 PM

Ed T sez: It seems that the point of the legal matter flew right over your head, Joe O. Like with the hard fought civil rights cases in the USA on racial discrimination, the intent is definately not to convert those charged with discrimination nor like thinking folks.

OK, Ed, I'll bite: What is the point?

My point is that refusal to serve homosexuals would clearly be illegal in most Western nations. The refusal by a private business to create an object displaying a slogan the business owner considers distasteful? I think that's another matter.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:43 PM

Joe O, As a USA citizen, I suspect you are aware of the historic role that litigation played in firming up the civil rights of blacks in USA society (including in being served by public business). From that experience, I suspect you can discover the answer to your question as to what is "the point".

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:46 PM

The business owner is not the final arbiter of good taste, any more than you are or I am. That is a very poor defence, Joe. In this case, the business owner refused to make the cake because he is a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:26 PM

Yep, Ed, I DO get the point. In the US, merchants are required to serve blacks, gays, and even Episcopalians. They are not, however, required to produce merchandise with "Black Power" slogans.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:52 PM

So, Joe, are you attempting to equate the revolutionary Black Panther movement with a loving marriage between two people of the same sex? Surely this was not your actual intent?

A love inspired message to a partner should logically be no more offensive to most compassionate folks, whether the persons were gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:02 PM

Methinks someone has missed the turn off to the Land of Point.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:17 PM

Wrong. Like fundamentalist "Islam"[sic] perhaps.

Would that include those countries that govern according to Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:34 PM

Regarding lost bearings, were there legal issues on cake baking requests related to Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:59 PM

What happens if a Jewish or Islamic baker is requested by a Christian to make a pie the pastry of which contains bacon fat and milk with a few dashes of vodka. They say no can do and the Christian customer gets offended. Where does that go under UK law when the Christian complains about being discriminated against?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:04 AM

God was so pleased with all the prayers that he sent Christians in the UK extra portions of cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:08 AM

""Eating a donut is easiest way to tell the world you don't give a fuck.""
Quote, Bill Burr

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:20 AM

"Who the fuck would run for a job where it costs 100 million to get it so you can make 400 grand a year? That isn't a red flag to anybody?"

There's another of his, Ed T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:26 AM

What if an anorexic baker said "I'm not selling you any cakes, you're too fat"

What if a baker refused to put blood in a cake for a Vampire customer ?

what if a baker refused to pick out all the bits of meat in a steak pie for a vegetarian ?

what if a nudist baker refused to put his pants on to serve the Queen ?

what if... oh bollocks, these 'what ifs' are just getting far too stupid ...

That christian baker is a bigot and no amount of ludicrous 'what ifs' make any difference,
or will ever help him to look any less bigoted by comparison...

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:46 AM

Thanks for your input, pfr, but you still haven't answered the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:02 AM

Ed, get your facts straight. "Black Power" was a slogan widely used in the black civil rights movement in the late 1960s and in the 1970s. It was used by many who did not espouse violence, not only by the Black Panthers. Nonetheless, many white Americans at the time considered the slogan to be threatening; and for that reason, many of us who were involved in the civil rights movement thought it unwise to use such a slogan.

The question is very similar to the attempt to force a baker to produce a cake with a slogan he didn't like. What I'm hearing from many of you is that if your cause is right, then you are right in using an aggressive approach to promote the cause. And while you may have that right, I question whether such an aggressive approach is effective. You may "win," but you may well lose ground in the process.

I'll use another simile, since so many of you appreciate my similes so much. It's like a peacemaker who works patiently and respectfully to build trust and work out a compromise with an opponent. Just as the agreement is to be signed, a horde of righteous warriors run over the hill and slaughter the lot of them. And since they won the battle, they claim the "moral high ground."

And the survivors arm themselves for battle, and any chance of a peaceful agreement is lost.

So, what is it that the "winners" won?

In my 66 years, I have learned many times that although I thought I was right in what I thought and said, other people had a valid perspective, too. And sometimes, I had to back down and admit I was wrong. Backing down and losing face is one of the hardest things in the world to do, but sometimes it is one of the most courageous and effective things a person can do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:14 AM

And I wonder about something - if you find fault with another person's method of explaining his position (as so many of you have done with my similes) or if you have to redefine the other person's words instead of addressing what he actually said (e.g., Black Panthers vs. Black Power), could it be that you are actually unable to build a credible argument against what the other person is saying?

I'll say it again - in this case, the plaintiffs had tried to force the baker to create something he didn't want to create. This is quite different from renting a house, or buying an item in a store, or getting your plumbing fixed. And whether such coercion is legal or not, it's certainly not a good way to gain the baker's respect.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:36 AM

The thing is.. Marriage is open to all in most countries and Northern Ireland is required to respect that and not treat anybody differently to anybody else on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation.

By discriminating on sexual orientation, the bakery owners are in conflict with the law, which a judge has succinctly upheld.

Nothing to see here, just reason.

Opinions are just that. Opinions. A person who exhibits a superstition that precludes agreeing with equality is entitled to hold that opinion and I am entitled to equate them with dogshit. It's a free country in that respect.

But when I was in business, I couldn't judge my customers, suppliers or employees on grounds of the equality criteria and that was even before The Equality Act 2010. Despite what pete put above, the owners of the "Christian" B&B did lose, lost heavily and whilst an appeal lowered their financial hit, they remained guilty of discrimination. Rightly so.

It isn't about winners and losers Joe, it's about tolerance, respect and all the other bits religious people chant but don't practice. Perhaps, having read the instruction manual, you might remind us of the bit about not judging lest you be judged?

Meanwhile, as pete has reminded us of the bigoted guest house refusing a couple accommodation, we would love to hear a sermon regarding the bit about no room at the inn? You can get Keith to take the collection afterwards.

Notice by the way that my dear friend Musket said he recognises Keith's marriage whilst Keith keeps trotting out "many people" to hide his shame in his own opinion of others. If that's what going to church does to you, then let's rejoice as it were that congregations are dwindling, churches and chapels are closing and a relative of mine who will begin his curacy soon has been informed that he will be covering at least five parishes in his new career... He might need a helicopter before he retires.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:38 AM

Guest,# What happens if a Jewish or Islamic baker is requested by a Christian to make a pie the pastry of which contains bacon fat and milk with a few dashes of vodka.

Red herring. The customer in this case was not asking the baker to do anything that is against their religion.

Joe - I'll say it again - in this case, the plaintiffs had tried to force the baker to create something he didn't want to create.

And I will say it again as well. The judge did not believe that defence. I don't either. The baker discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation. Read the judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:02 AM

I will say that this is a good demonstration of the difference in attitudes about speech in the UK, as opposed to the US attitude.

In the U.S., government and the courts can't stop people from saying what they want to say. And they can't force people to say what they don't want to say. I don't think the plaintiff would win a similar lawsuit in the U.S.

In the British Isles, such coercion is apparently appropriate.

There is value in both approaches. Is one of them right and the other wrong? No, they're just different.

As for me, I prefer the U.S. philosophy about speech. Apparently, that makes me a horrible person in the eyes of some of those in the British Isles, to the point of them feel justified to attack my religious beliefs - beliefs that I did not express at all in this thread.

I think that many of you have a very perverted concept of what's fair and what's not.

I think this is a very good illustration of what I call "absolutism" - people who live by ideology instead of critical thought, people who are totally unable to question their own thinking because they are so thoroughly convinced of their righteousness. In the U.S., such people usually espouse conservative causes. In the British Isles, many of these absolutists profess a liberal ideology. Whether liberal or conservative, these absolutists are "true believers," totally unable to accept any thoughts other than their own.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:08 AM

I will say that this is a good demonstration of the difference in attitudes about speech in the UK, as opposed to the US attitude.

No it isn't, Joe. You keep skirting the fact that the judge did not believe it was about the message but about the plaintiff being gay. In the UK you can say what you want but you cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. I believe it is the same in the US although some states still seem to allow this type of repression.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:20 AM

A good summary here from the BBC. Includes the unequivocal statement

District Judge Isobel Brownlie said Ashers was "conducting a business for profit", and it was not a religious group.

The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.

The judge said she accepted that Ashers has "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.

No amount of 'what ifs' or speculation will change the fact that in law it was deemed to be discrimination against the plaintiff, not the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:29 AM

Joe is right, evey self employed person is free to refuse to work for someone, what they cannot do in this case is give an honest reason. both sides are silly on this one ,the gay couple should have just gone somewhere else to get their cake made, and the cake company should have not made a big issue about their opposition to making the cake.
many people are prejudice against black people that is legal providing they do not voice their opinions in public, the cake companies mistake was to make their views known.
I am in favour of gay people having equal rights,but i do not think this case will change anything very much, we already know that certain christian groups have anti gay prejudices and will continue to do so, this cake company will probably still refuse to make cakes for gay people but just not give a genuine reason, they do not have to give any reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:38 AM

"Like many people, the bakers believe that marriage should remain only for people not closely related, conforming to the local age restriction and of opposite sex."
Now you are compounding Joe's indefensible statement by comparing gay marriage to two criminal acts - incest and paedophila - and you say you are not "disdaining gay marriage" !!
Is that a closet door I hear banging?
Fro the beginning of this referendum campaign the main opponents has been the church (the last organisation to have any say on sexual matters with their recent track record) and their adherents.
Up to the last week or so they have kept a fairly low profile, but now they have entered the fray with a vengeance with their claims that Gay marriage is an attack on the family and that to pass the amendment would be to undermine the family as an institution.
It really is time these beasts were put out to grass before they can do any more damage to society.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:43 AM

I like The US too Joe. In California, a similar law applies. We have free speech in The UK, just as you do. We don't allow incitement to hatred though, just as you don't.

We also treat religion differently to everything else and I am ashamed to say our law does allow aspects of bigotry when it is in the name of a recognised religion. That stain on our laws however does not go as far as allowing to treat people differently on the basis of sexual orientation, other than gay Church of England vicars cannot get married and Church of England premises cannot conduct marriage between gay couples.

Those two aspects are presently subject to test cases to be conducted under human rights criteria though, and the government, when passing the legislation knew that their compromise to get gay marriage passed has a shelf life.

There is no coercion in The UK. Just laws to protect people from discrimination.

Meanwhile, as two of your pilgrim father's come from very close to me, I notice that they left here not because they were being persecuted but because they weren't being allowed to persecute others. Bill Bryson wrote an interesting account of it...

Many Christians here moan that they are being persecuted when they are prevented from persecuting. If you want, I'll fund another Mayflower and you are welcome to the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:12 AM

Musket, you say a similar law applies here in California. I've lived here in California since 1973, and my employment and volunteer work has required me to be very familiar with the law. Pray tell, what law are you speaking about? As far as I know, there is no law that prohibits a person from speaking against gay marriage or requires a person to produce slogans supporting gay marriage.

I was rather upset that it took so long for California to allow gay marriage. I was sure the electorate would make California the first to approve gay marriage. Instead of that, the voters approved a referendum that prohibited gay marriage, and it was the courts that forced the state to allow gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is now approved by law in California, but citizens are still free to speak in opposition to it, and clergy are free to refuse to officiate at weddings they don't approve of.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:19 AM

I guess you could call me a "libertarian" on this subject. I strongly support the right of gay couples to marry. I also strongly support the right of others to refuse to support the idea of gay marriage.

The people I call "absolutists," both on the right and on the left, seem to think they have a right to control what other people say and do and think. I disagree.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:22 AM

Threads like this remind me how introverted and self-obsessed our species has become! The biosphere is dying folks. We've de-stabilised the climate and we're living through the greatest extinction event for 65 million years. The ice caps are melting and the oceans are acidifying and are full of our litter. Top-soils are eroding away, due to intensive agriculture, and many of our key 'bread baskets' are getting drier and drier. Meanwhile our populations continue grow out of control: all a recipe for a 'perfect storm'. Deadly conflicts rage in many parts of the world with resource depletion and climate change a possible cause in many of them; there's an increasing possibility that at least one of these conflicts could go nuclear.

And we obsess about a fucking cake!! Jesus!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:13 AM

We know that the baker is opposed to gay marriage.
You may hate him for that, but he is entitled to his view.

The baker was opposed to the slogan and would have refused to write it whoever asked, so he did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Had the gay customer asked for a different slogan, no problem.
Had a straight customer asked for that slogan, refusal.
No discrimination against any orientation, only against the slogan.

I think the baker was set up because of his faith.
Entrapment.
They asked for a slogan they knew he would refuse to make, and then accused him of discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:19 AM

Guardian 15 hours ago,

"A Christian walks into a Muslim sign writer's shop and orders a placard. He says it should carry a cartoon of the prophet and the slogan Muslims Go Home. The sign writer is deeply offended and says he cannot execute the order. The customer is outraged at the discrimination, is supported by the equality commission, sues, and the sign writer is fined £500 plus costs.

I think most people would find such a saga absurd. Why did the Christian not acknowledge a difference of opinion and go elsewhere for his placard? Yet that is the gist of the case this week against Mr and Mrs McArthur, owners of Ashers Baking Company in Belfast. They could not bring themselves to ice a cake with the slogan, Support Gay Marriage, which they strongly oppose and which is still illegal in Northern Ireland. It had been ordered by a gay rights activist, Gareth Lee, in honour of Northern Ireland's first gay mayor, Andrew Muir of North Down."

"The judge took the view that the refusal to write the slogan was direct discrimination against Lee's sexual orientation. The McArthurs denied this, retorting that they sell cakes to many gay people; it was the slogan that neither they nor their staff could write. They would have felt the same had Lee been heterosexual. The judge chose to disagree, saying in effect that their action was no different from a restaurant refusing to serve a black person. To my mind, a better parallel would be the Catholic Herald refusing to publish an anti-Catholic tirade."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:21 AM

I meant to highlight this,
"The judge took the view that the refusal to write the slogan was direct discrimination against Lee's sexual orientation. The McArthurs denied this, retorting that they sell cakes to many gay people; it was the slogan that neither they nor their staff could write. They would have felt the same had Lee been heterosexual. The judge chose to disagree,"

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:32 AM

...the attempt to force a baker to produce a cake with a slogan he didn't like

This is a tendentious misrepresentation of the transaction which casts the customer as aggressive and the cake shop as a potential victim. When I go into a shop to buy a pint of milk I am not setting out to force the chap to hand over the milk. I am intending (if I think about it at all) to be an equal participant in a hopefully amicable transaction. We have no reason to think that the chap who commissioned the cake was being any different. Had I described the shop's refusal to supply the cake as an attempt to force the customer to go elsewhere for his cake you would, quite rightly, have picked me up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:51 AM

He sells cakes to many gay customers.
He only refused to write the slogan, and would have refused whoever the customer.
No discrimination.
No crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:59 AM

The judge disagrees, Keith, and she is eminent, an expert and alive. I don't know if any of her works are in prominent display in Waterstones.

As to

Had the gay customer asked for a different slogan, no problem.
Had a straight customer asked for that slogan, refusal.

Neither of those things are what happened. No point speculating.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:05 AM

Shimrod - Do you not weed the garden because the trees needs pruning? Seeing as there is so much to do in the world why are you posting on here anyway? And why would you think people cannot worry about both major and minor issues at the same time?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:08 AM

Well, Keith, that was of course the somewhat wayward Simon Jenkins, bless 'im, who I dare say you would demur from quoting very often on some of his other Guardian contributions. Incidentally, you should have said who wrote the piece you quoted. It was not the Guardian. It was Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. The Guardian is a newspaper that does not manacle it's columnists to any agenda. I've seen stuff in the editorial pages that has been, variously, Islamophobic and antisemitic that has made my blood boil. I've caught you out before doing this, haven't I. Perhaps you are only "speaking generally" again. Do try to remember that some of us get The Guardian every day. Try to avoid those Geoffrey Wheatcroft brain-farts of yours, Keith.

Anyway, I don't agree with Simon Jenkins. The anti-Muslim placard he posits contains hate speech, illegal. The proposed cake contained nothing illegal and was not hate speech. Another point. Gay marriage is not "illegal" in Northern Ireland. It is not recognised. There is a non-subtle difference, Keith. His Catholic Herald point is ridiculous and I'm surprised that even you would quote it. Many publications would print stuff that goes against their editorial policy. They would include a disclaimer, that's all. In fact, the Catholic Herald printing an anti-Catholic tirade, along with comment/disclaimer, might actually strengthen the paper. I think that the Guardian is all the stronger for publishing stuff that must at times have the editor holding his nose. In any case, the parallel fails in that the Catholic Herald has a frankly Catholic agenda. The cake shop does not. That makes a world of difference and makes his comparison absurd. Even worse for him, all newspapers expressly reserve the right to edit or refuse contributions. I have yet to see a cake shop doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:09 AM

The baker says that he does supply cakes to gay customers.
I know what the judge said.
I think that the judge was wrong.
She has no window into the baker's soul.
How can she say that they refused the customer and not the slogan when they do serve gay customers?

"We feel that the Equality Commission are pursuing us because of our beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman," he (the baker) said.

"It feels like a David and Goliath battle because on one hand we have the Equality Commission who are a public body, they're funded by taxpayers' money, they have massive resources at their disposal whereas we are a small family business and we have limited resources at our disposal."

There you have it Dave.
Those who can afford the big, expensive, fancy lawyers win in court as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:11 AM

Its. Not it's. It's not it's when it's its.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:11 AM

Another point. Gay marriage is not "illegal" in Northern Ireland. It is not recognised.

Yes it is.
If a person authorised to carry out marriages married a gay couple, they would be in breach of the law and prosecuted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:15 AM

Talk about sour grapes, Keith. Makes you wonder why we bother with a justice system, eh, Keith? Maybe the cake shop should have got the Catholic Church behind them. That would have given 'em some wallop, eh? Bet the Church can afford big, fancy expensive lawyers! Another trick missed!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:21 AM

"No discrimination.
No crime."
Pity the law says differently eh?
The church is now pulling out the stops here for a "no" vote on the referendum - flooding local and national newspapers with letters - our local church is holding an all-night vigil on Thursday to "preserve marriage"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:28 AM

There is nothing to stop anyone from carrying out a "marriage" ceremony as long as the participants all understand that it has no force in law. It would be illegal only if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the couple into thinking they were legally married. That would be a different crime, one of deception, not a crime of "illegal gay marriage". If I go out on a stag night with a fake policeman's helmet on, clear to all that I am a reveller, not a bobby, I am not committing a crime. If I wear that helmet with clothes that look a bit like a policeman's uniform, and go around trying to arrest people, then that's a crime. The element of deception is everything, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:34 AM

we are a small family business and we have limited resources at our disposal
...
Those who can afford the big, expensive, fancy lawyers win in court as usual.

If that was a quote from the business concerned then there is little wonder that the judge did not believe them. Look at the BBC link I posted before.

However, Ashers said it was "taking a stand" on the grounds of religious freedom. The bakery's stance was backed by the Christian Institute, which has been providing it with legal assistance.

So, a Christian Fundamentalist pressure group is footing the bill for Ashers case. I have no idea who has the bigger budget for this case, them or the Equality Commission, but it is hardly David and Goliath. It also puts the comments made about Gareth Lee having an agenda. I could speculate, as others have, about whether Ashers contacted the CI before changing their mind about accepting the order but there is little point. We will never know. The judge ruled based on what was presented.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:37 AM

And it's worth repeating, approximately every ten or twenty posts, that the cake shop personnel are bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:57 AM

Ok Joe, while I incorrectly associating the term Black Power exclusively to the Black Panther movement. However, before you go off on that tangent, this does not negate my statemebts that you are not presenting a reasonable case in suggesting that the hypothetical use of this term is similar to the gay legal case -which involves the refusal of a business service "only" related to a lawful gay loving relationship, which seems to be for bigoted reasons.

Regardless of some individuals religious based prejudices, the judges ruled, based on the evidence presented and the law in a few areas where similar cases have come forward. Like with other discrimination isssues, changes are built on many such rulings over time.

I am not lured into a tempting concept you put forward, that the issues in this case are  solely libertarian based. To me, they are clearly related to gay discrimination. The judge who directly reviewed the evidence, which we were not privy to in entirity, seemed to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:00 AM

International Christian plot
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:01 AM

So, if a Muslim baker refuses to decorate a cake with a caricature of prophet Mohammed, claiming it goes against his religion, he can be charged with discrimination on the basis of religious belief. That is the implication of the judge's ruling:

"The defendants are not a religious organisation. They are conducting a business for profit and, notwithstanding their genuine religious beliefs, there are no exceptions available under the 2006 regulations which apply to this case."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:08 AM

And it's worth repeating, approximately every ten or twenty posts, that the cake shop personnel are bigots.

There you have the problem with you people.
Blatant prejudice.

The bakers have a certain view about traditional marriage.
That does not make them bigots.
Some gay people share that view.

No-one has put forward any evidence that they are bigots.
No other gay customer has complained about them, despite all the publicity and the entitlement to compensation.

They are quite clear that they would have refused to write the slogan whoever the customer, so there was no discrimination.
The prosecution have not proved otherwise.
This is a travesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:08 AM

So, if a Muslim baker refuses to decorate a cake with a caricature of prophet Mohammed, claiming it goes against his religion, he can be charged with discrimination on the basis of religious belief. That is the implication of the judge's ruling:

No it isn't. Have you read nothing leading up to this point? If the Muslim baker did as you suggest it would be fine. If the Muslim baker would not make the cake because the customer was Gay he can and should be charged with discrimination. The judge in the case in question believed the baker was being discriminatory about the plaintiff, not the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:09 AM

Joe, surely the US (at least in some places) prohibits hate speech. Surely you are not allowed to say "I hate fucking niggers". I am CERTAIN that you are not allowed to say "I hate all fucking niggers they should all be hanged".

Keith, had you noticed that you are defending homophobia again? Am I surprised? I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:10 AM

The judge who directly reviewed the evidence, which we were not privy to in entirity,

Is some of the evidence being withheld then Jim?
Who told you that?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:15 AM

Keith, had you noticed that you are defending homophobia again? Am I surprised? I am not.

More blatant prejudice.
Richard has decided that the bakers are homophobes just because of their traditional views on marriage.

No-one has put forward any evidence that they are bigots.
No other gay customer has complained about them, despite all the publicity and the entitlement to compensation.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:17 AM

There you have the problem with you people.
Blatant prejudice.

Just who are 'you people', Keith? Gays? Liberals? Satanists? Blanket statements like that are likely to offend more people than you intended.

The prosecution have not proved otherwise.
This is a travesty.

Yes they have, Else the judge would not have ruled in favour of the plaintiff. Most legal cases like this will generate controversy. Some people are going to say it is right. Others not. Maybe you can combine this 'travesty' with an ongoing Rolf Harris campaign. The free Rolf cake movement?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:23 AM

Yes they have,

So what evidence proved they discriminated Dave.
Jim's withheld stuff?

Guardian yesterday,
"The judge took the view that the refusal to write the slogan was direct discrimination against Lee's sexual orientation. The McArthurs denied this, retorting that they sell cakes to many gay people; it was the slogan that neither they nor their staff could write. They would have felt the same had Lee been heterosexual. The judge chose to disagree,"

On what grounds???

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:27 AM

The judge in the case in question believed the baker was being discriminatory about the plaintiff, not the message.

The judge was wrong in this case as the baker has other gay customers that he has no problem doing business with. It was clearly the message he had a problem with. Judges are not infallible.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:29 AM

Is some of the evidence being withheld then Jim?

Remember in the infamous history debate, Keith? You went to great lengths to point out that, in a public debate, it was as much how things were said and reacted to as what was being said? Who was it that almost laughed at something when speaking to a left wing historian? I certainly can't be arsed looking it up but I am sure you will remember. Do you not think the same rules apply in courts? No matter what words have been publicly reported, no-one who was not in the courtroom at all times is privy to everything that went on. Not a question of anything being withheld. Simply an absence of understanding.

Anything to say about the bakers being bankrolled by a Christian fundamentalist pressure group BTW?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:32 AM

"Is some of the evidence being withheld then Jim?"
Huh????
"That does not make them bigots"
It makes their church bigoted for promoting such views
"The defendants are not a religious organisation"
The defendants declared that their reasons for refusing were religious ones.
So far, the augment here in favour of their bigotry has been to equate same sex marriage with "neo Nazism", paedophila and incest - pretty much in line with that taken by fundamental Christians (though though the Church here has claimed that a Yes vote is an infringement of Irish freedom - haven't worked that one out yet.
" so there was no discrimination"
Yes - the answer they gave was that they would discriminate against all who disagreed with them - blanket discrimination.
"If the Muslim baker would not make the cake because the customer was Gay he can and should be charged with discrimination."
Why not - don't the same laws apply to all (apparently not to some Christians, it would appear)?
Isn't it much easier to debate these issues when everybody emerges from their particular closet instead of claiming to believe one thing, then arguing the other????
Would that we could always do it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:46 AM

It makes their church bigoted for promoting such views

No it does not.
More prejudice.
Having a traditional view of marriage does not make anyone a bigot.
Many gay people oppose gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:00 AM

If you opposed gay marriage because it would adversely affect you in some way, you would not be a bigot. Gay marriage does not affect anyone who does not wish to be married that way. You are entitled to have an opinion, no matter how deluded, that it's morally wrong, etc., but you are not entitled to stand in someone's way of gay marriage in any regard at all and avoid the charge of bigotry. At present, the law in northern Ireland stands in the way, a defect that will be corrected soon, hopefully. In a small way that cake shop has tried to put an obstacle in the way of the future happiness of gay people, on no more grounds that they disagree with gay marriage. They clearly don't accept that there can alternative valid opinions to theirs that should be respected.   That's dyed-in-the-wool bigotry, in this case hiding behind a religion which they hope will attract more respect for them than they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:03 AM

I am CERTAIN that you are not allowed to say "I hate all fucking niggers they should all be hanged".


Unfortunately, Richard, you're dead wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:11 AM

Having a traditional view of marriage does not make anyone a bigot.

You are a bigot if you don't accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

Many gay people oppose gay marriage.

So what? Gay people are just as capable of getting it wrong. I'd also add that plenty of heterosexual people oppose "traditional" marriage. My view is that everyone is entitled to get married, or not, in any ceremonial manner they choose, and, provided no-one is being exploited or coerced into it, it is no-one's business but theirs and no-one is entitled to do or say anything to diminish their happiness. Call me old-fashioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:14 AM

In a small way that cake shop has tried to put an obstacle in the way of the future happiness of gay people, on no more grounds that they disagree with gay marriage.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion on the issue without being called a bigot or a homophobe.

They clearly don't accept that there can alternative valid opinions to theirs that should be respected.

Not at all clear to me Steve, but YOU clearly don't accept that there can be alternative valid opinions to yours that should be respected.
On marriage for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:15 AM

"No it does not."
Yes it does - the church opposed decriminalising homosexuality, now it is opposing extending the same rights to homosexuals as the rest of us
Paint it whatever colour you wish - yhat is homophobic bigotry.
"Having a traditional view of marriage does not make anyone a bigot."
The depriving of basic rights to those who do not hold those views does
It is not what people believe that is at issue, it is imposing those beliefs on others that is - that is fundamentalist bigotry.
"Many gay people oppose gay marriage"
So what?
The vast majority of them do and if the minority attempted to impose their views on the rest they would be bigots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:16 AM

You are a bigot if you don't accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

Agree Steve, but you do not seem to accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

So what? Gay people are just as capable of getting it wrong.

So those gay people are homophobic bigots, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:20 AM

it is imposing those beliefs on others that is - that is fundamentalist bigotry.


Agree Jim, but the bakers did not do that.
You people seem to want to impose your beliefs on them though.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:22 AM

No, but they may be bigots if they stand in the way of people who want gay marriage.

As for my not accepting other views, did you read what I just said?

"My view is that everyone is entitled to get married, or not, in any ceremonial manner they choose, and, provided no-one is being exploited or coerced into it, it is no-one's business but theirs and no-one is entitled to do or say anything to diminish their happiness. Call me old-fashioned."

Did you catch it this time, Keith, or should I type it again for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:36 AM

"Agree Jim, but the bakers did not do that."
By refusing to take the customers order on religious grounds, they did just that
On what grounds are you claim that the verdict was wrong - so far, you have said that the bakers denied it.
Our prisons are fullof innocent people if that's all it takes.
The church makes no bones about its belief that homosexualty is wrong and unnatural - that is bigotry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 10:04 AM

Jim, they have gay customers.
No other gay customer has reported discrimination despite all the publicity and entitlement to compensation.
There is no evidence of discrimination, only of refusing to make a political slogan whoever wanted it, gay or straight.

Agree Steve, but you do not seem to accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.
Do you agree that people may hold different views to you on changing the rules governing marriage?

Also Steve, same sex marriage IS illegal in Ireland.
Anyone who knowingly registered as married someone who is precluded, eg already married or same sex, is committing a criminal offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 10:14 AM

The judge chose to disagree...

On what grounds???

Why ask us? Ask the judge. We are not privy to her though processes any more than you say the judge cannot read the bakers mind.

So, who are 'you people'? What do you think of the bakers receiving aid from a fundamentalist organisation? You keep posing questions but not answering many as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 10:31 AM

Agree Steve, but you do not seem to accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

Yes I do. But I do not accept that there are views that should in any shape or form be allowed to stand in the way of gay people's reasonable aspirations to happiness.

Do you agree that people may hold different views to you on changing the rules governing marriage?

I do not agree that anyone should stand in the way of changing the rules. If you do that over an issue that has no adverse effect on you, rather that you just don't like it, you're a bigot. You would be assuming that your view is the truth and not just your view. My views on this don't stand in anyone's way, except for busybodies who want to interfere in other people's lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 May 15 - 10:45 AM

"Shimrod - Do you not weed the garden because the trees needs pruning? Seeing as there is so much to do in the world why are you posting on here anyway? And why would you think people cannot worry about both major and minor issues at the same time?"

Because no-one appears to be worrying about the major issue of our time - the state of the environment!

Notice how you are the only person who has even remarked on my post, DtG? While I hate discrimination on the grounds of ethnic background, sexuality etc. - mainly because it's cruel and stupid - I find that I couldn't really give a toss about gay marriage. Not because I don't like gay people but because, in a sane and sensible world, it would be around number 3,512,458th on our list of priorities! The cliche, 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' doesn't even come close - it's more like endlessly quarrelling about the exact shade of blue of the stripes on the deck chairs on the Titanic! The REAL victims of discrimination, in the world today, are the generations who will come after us and all of the other living things that we share the planet with.

I live opposite a primary school and very day, when I hear the happy little voices in the playground, I can't help thinking about the shitty, dangerous mess that those little kids will inherit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:00 AM

So, what are you saying then, Shimrod? That no-one should talk about less important issues?

Because no-one appears to be worrying about the major issue of our time - the state of the environment!

I worry about it as I suspect everyone does. Just because I am not talking about it all the time does not mean that I do not care. There is a world of difference between not discussing and not caring. Do bear in mind that Mudcat is a trivial web site with a small membership. It is the place to discuss trivial matters, such as folk music, cakes and deck chairs. If you want to evangelise this is not the place to do it. If you want deep meaningful discussions then I can only suggest that you try elsewhere. Sorry :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:01 AM

Ah, but all these issues are intertwined...

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:13 AM

"Jim, they have gay customers."
So what - tey refused to take an order on religious grounds - that is an act of bigotry - simple as that.
"There is no evidence of discrimination,"
You have just bee given your example of discrimination - refusing to take an order because that order didn't suit their beliefs - that is an act of bigotry, simple as that.
They were found guilty of having done what they were accused of - simple as that.
I ask again, on what grounds do you dispute the judge's decision - you don't give one other than "judges can be mistaken" and "the accused claimed they were innocent"? - response so far therefore you have no case - simple as that.
If you believe what you claim to believe, why are you disputing something that is being accepted by everyone else and decided by a fairly conducted trial- even the the accused has accepted the verdict (unless you know that they are mounting an appeal) - after all, the are being bankrolled by religious fundamentalists?
You still have to justify your defending Joe's Neo-Natzi comparison and your own peadophie/incest comparisons - which says it all, as far as I'm concerned
Think that wraps everything up - bye Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:27 AM

Some people here think the baker turned down a sale so as to discriminate against gays, while others think they turned down a sale because they didn't want to write something supporting a political position they opposed. I'm not sure which side to take.

Let's take away the volatile gay issue: What if a US bakery was owned by a Republican, and an Eisenhower socialist came in and ordered a cake that said "91 Percent Tax Rate for the One Percent" and the baker refused? Discrimination against socialists? Or the baker's right to a political position?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:31 AM

Jim,
I ask again, on what grounds do you dispute the judge's decision

No evidence has emerged that they discriminated on grounds of orientation.
They refused to write a slogan irrespective of who ordered it.
No discrimination occurred.

They have not been proven guilty.
Under our system that makes them innocent.
Someone should explain that to her honour the judge.

Steve, marriage has been for man and woman forever.
Now we are challenging that, but you can not expect everyone to change their views on the same day.

You said,
You are a bigot if you don't accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

I agree, but you clearly do not accept that there can be alternative views that should be respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:34 AM

Why don't you tell us first who that cake would be for?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:36 AM

The cake could be for anyone.
Lots of people, gay and straight, support and campaign for gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:37 AM

"The never ending what ifs".... hmmmm.. maybe get a CD title out of that...???😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:40 AM

On the other hand, what right does the baker have to tell someone what should or should not be written on their cake?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:46 AM

No right at all, but he does not have to write it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:47 AM

The two articles in the link, clearly indicate the double, so-called, "religious" standards of a USA bakery that refused service to a gay couple


Sweet cakes owners, not that sweet 



Sweet Cakes Pranked 

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:57 AM

""It's very dangerous to wave to people you don't know because "what if" they don't have hands? They'll think you're cocky.""
Mitch Hedberg

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:58 AM

""What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.""

Woody Allen

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:58 AM

btw... The "they have other gay customers" line of defence argument...

what complete spurious bollocks..

The cake shop is a business - they're in it for the money.. any money !!!

the pink £££$$$ are worth just as much as anyone else's to a baker's profit margin...

Course, that's not to say a truly homophobic christian baker wouldn't put on disposable gloves
at the sight of a potentially gay customer entering the shop;
then as soon as the customer leaves with the cakes,
mutter a prayer and spray 'n' wipe the cash with Dettol..

just to be on the safe side......😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:25 PM

gay cake sounds nice.

when we were students we used to load swiss roll with cannabis. i don't know about gay, but it made us all pretty happy.

when i was living to gether with the lady who became my wife. neither pair of parents would enter the house we were living in. i'm not sure what you can do about moral outrage. some people live in the past, and its not that long ago homosexuality was made legal - particularly the case in NI, I believe. Jim would know.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:28 PM

Well, at least no one raised the disgustingly suggestive "spotted dick".
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:31 PM

So if you're in business to make money you have to do whatever anyone with money tells you to do? You can't impose any limits as to what you're willing to do?

What if the customer wants you to write "Kill the pigs" on a cake? What if they want anchovies on the cake?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:36 PM

what if .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz😴


"So if you're in business to make money you have to do whatever anyone with money tells you to do?
You can't impose any limits as to what you're willing to do?"

I'll tell you my limits if you tell me yours...😘

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:38 PM

"No discrimination occurred."
Sighhhhhh
They refused to accept an order for a cake displaying a support for gay rights - that is discrimination
They did not, as you suggested, refuse to create that slogan - the order was specific and hey refused it on religious grounds -that is discrimination
"No discrimination occurred.
"No discrimination occurred. - They have not been proven guilty. "
Are you completely insane?
GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION
"Someone should explain that to her honour the judge"
Perhaps you should explan that to us - so far you have only said "judges can make mistakes" and "the bakers denied it"
Do you really belive yourself to know more than the judge and do you think you can get away with such a claim without even bothering to explain your case?
Sorry Keith - you appear to have flipped.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:50 PM

This is reminiscent of the lunatic aylum,technically discrimination occurred, but the whole thing is so laughable, the judge is a pillock, he was technically right ,but anyone with any sense would have made a judgement such as this, yes technically discrimination, damages cost of baking cake to the gay couple,costs to be split between the two sides , with a reminder not to be bringing such trivial cases to court.
Shimrod hit the nail on the head with his postSubject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Shimrod - PM
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:22 AM

Threads like this remind me how introverted and self-obsessed our species has become! The biosphere is dying folks. We've de-stabilised the climate and we're living through the greatest extinction event for 65 million years. The ice caps are melting and the oceans are acidifying and are full of our litter. Top-soils are eroding away, due to intensive agriculture, and many of our key 'bread baskets' are getting drier and drier. Meanwhile our populations continue grow out of control: all a recipe for a 'perfect storm'. Deadly conflicts rage in many parts of the world with resource depletion and climate change a possible cause in many of them; there's an increasing possibility that at least one of these conflicts could go nuclear.

And we obsess about a fucking cake!! Jesus!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:57 PM

Who would want a cake made by a bigot anyway. Who knows what he would put in the batter. Better to go elsewhere and then write an article in the paper about why you should not go there. Get some friends to picket the place. He will be out of business quick. I don't like laws forcing issues like this. Most laws are good and fight against discrimination. I am not sure a cake law would solve much

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:07 PM

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear cakes, shall not be infringed"...😜

Perhaps this court case could have been better resolved
with a massive televised custard pie fight ???

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:18 PM

" I am not sure a cake law would not solve much"

Reminds me of way, way back, and those who couldn't understand why Rosa Parks would not wish to sit in the back of the bus, where 75% of people "of her kind" sat-and projected that "bus laws" would not solve much.

When you are not the one discriminated against and feels the injustice - standing up for your rights could seem trivial.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:26 PM

was i right Jim? Ihad an idea that homosexuality was illegal longer in NI than it was in England.
How log has it been legal over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: DMcG
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:32 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Would it be acceptable to decorate a cake with the image of prophet Mohammed?


Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:29 AM

It would be legal in this country. It would be illegal to physically attack someone for doing it. I can't imagine there being much demand. Still. Your somewhat mischievous line of questioning gets a straight answer, whether it deserves it or not.


More to the point, would it be illegal to refuse to do it? As I understand this ruling, yes it would. You might try the defence that your were trying to avoid incitement, but you would be the one taking all the legal (and physical) risks.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:32 PM

Ed, There is a massive difference between the two cases, if you seriously think this case will make any difference to discrimination against gay people you are in my opinion very much mistaken, this case is trivial, the bus law case was not.
there is an important referendum on gay rights due to take place in ireland very soon, it is important the cake is not.
anyone bothering to talk about the irish referendum, no ,you are wasting time on this trivial cake, talk about tilting at windmills

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:03 PM

I disagree with your assessment GSS.

Regardless, while trivial to some (and, many who dont like gays obtaining basic rights that main stream folks have enjoyed for many years) , it certainly was important for those involved.

Only the future holds the truth for just how important these two cases could be to stimulate gays tobstand up for their rights in court-the main arena where change happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:31 PM

Jim,
They refused to accept an order for a cake displaying a support for gay rights - that is discrimination

Against who?
The cake?
The did not discriminate because they would refuse it for anyone gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: CupOfTea
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:34 PM

I think both the bakers and the customers made foolish choices and the escalation of this to a court case was not something that did any good for either viewpoint. It irks me to the bone every time "discrimination" is trotted out as the foul deed done someone. I remember when "having discriminating taste" was an asset, and meant merely that one could make good and educated choices when informed of facts.

What KIND of discrimination happens can be for a range of reasons from sensible to bigoted, with a very large grey area between points on that continuum. I see those who use Christianity as their reason to oppose gay marriage (or homosexuality as a whole)as being very wrong. I'm going to avoid them, boycott their businesses - my own discrimination. I can't change or legislate a shift in the thinking of "true believers" but think that encouraging the ideas I believe in (like marriage equality for gays) helps swell the tide of public opinion, so they're going to be swimming against that tide. Yet, I support their right to hold to their opinion, and to live their lives and earn their living in a way that they find ethical.

As a straight person who commissioned a very pricy wedding anniversary cake for a gay couple I love, from a straight, Catholic, brilliant cake artist, I had the sense to offer options in the commission that resulted in no one being offended, and everyone delighted with the portfolio-worthy result. While I employed someone who was definitely a cake artist, and the bakery in this contentious case may not have risen to that level, I believe an artist, or artisan, should have the right to decline a commission. I don't see that "offering my services to the public" means that the public gets to dictate that I MUST do something that violates my own ethics. Heck *I* would have declined this as I don't find reproducing licensed characters ethical (as punkfolkrocker pointed out about the Sesame Street Characters).

There are better ways of fighting bigotry than being litigious over minor issues. In the US, we'd say "don't make a Federal case out of it." The lesson should be for the folks to have better taste in who they hire.

Joanne in Cleveland - straight, not narrow

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:37 PM

"Against who?
The cake?"

The sooner this referendum is out the way, the sooner we as a society
can get on with the priority issue
of equal rights for cakes...

What if a jam sponge wanted to marry a trifle ?

Where does the church stand on this sticky issue...???😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:47 PM

"The lesson should be for the folks to have better taste in who they hire."

While a good general rule-it is hardly wise to put a one-size-fits-all approach to every situation regarding discrimination. Sometimes, it is beficial to, hold firm and fight for your rights (legally) versus wimping out and "kicking the can down the road" for someone else.

Btw, kudos to your stated sensitivity to gay folks-from another "straight person" -onev who also sharesc compassion for the plight the less fortunate in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:52 PM

What if a spotted dick took "a carrot cake fancy" to a jelly roll. Would it really matter to a fruit cake acquaintance?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Fergie
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:55 PM

What is it about posts south of the line? The most seem to degenerate into slagging matches where people stop listening to each other and start hysterical screaming. The Judgement is available in a link to an earlier posting in this thread and it deserves a careful and considered examination. I have read it again very thoroughly and reiterate my previous conclusions.

The Judge stated that the specific legislation under which the prosecution was taken holds that irrespective of ones religious beliefs, it is unlawful for a company that supplies services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The bakery initially accepted the order and took the customers money, but at a later time refused to supply the goods because the owner of the bakery were opposed to gay marriage.

If the required message on the cake was to have been in support of heterosexual marriage then the company would have supplied the goods.

Therefore the customer was discriminated against on the basis that he supported gay marriage.

It's that simple folks, so please stop getting all het up about it.

Peace and love to all. Fergie

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:59 PM

"Against who"
You really don't get it, do you?
They admitted that the reason they refused the order was that irt went against their Christian principles - they discriminated against the customer because he specified a Gay message on his cake - that made their actions homophobic - if they had had any principles they would have refused to serve gays, no matter what the consequences
It's done and dusted Keith - the judge gave her verdict, the Bakery accepted the verdict and are not appealing, the fundamentalists who bankrolled the defence accepted the verdict, the press and news announced the verdict - all over the world - not a quibble from any of them - done and dusted.
You are the only individual - here or elsewhere to disput the findings of the court.... don't you thing that a little
ER
"ER "
Best yet - keep 'em coming
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:07 PM

""The most seem to degenerate into slagging matches where people stop listening to each other and start hysterical screaming. ""

I guess there is a different definition on what constitutes a "slagging match"? While many folks have ignored the court facts, is someone actually screaming?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:15 PM

and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles ?. this was a contest between religious rights and homosexual demands , and on this occasion the latter won in law. I do not dispute that. that does not deny us the right to say the verdict was nonsense, and unjust. the homosexual man would seem to have gone into a known Christian bakers , probably knowing that it would violate their principles if they printed his message that promotes the redefinition of marriage. whether his feelings were hurt or not, I know not. but it is my opinion fwiw, that it is the christians who are being persecuted here, not the homosexual. there is no evidence of persecution or bigotry, other than that the proprietors adhere, as best they can, to what they read in the bible. any other order by anyone whatever their sexual activity would not have been refused and I suspect that when the order was declined, there was no evidence of any animosity on their part. one things for sure...you could not accuse the complainant of being thick skinned !.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:28 PM

""and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles ?""

Pay attention to the legal cases, Pete.

(Kind of over kill on what constitutes "Christian principles" , is it not, Pete?).

So, if'n a "christian" fella opens a public business, serving the general public, versus a religious focused one, it is a clear choice to do so and the business benefits financially from that choice. But, by making the choice to "go public" , all are required to follow the secular laws of the land. It is an elementary choice, that is often compromised by the desire for dollars from all sectors, Christian, not so Christian, varied religious perspectives, and otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:30 PM

So let's see if I have this right. There is a little bit of a tide coming in here that says the cake issue is so trivial that it's hard to understand what all the fuss about.

Well I'm not gay and I'm trying to understand why this issue got people's backs up. I think I get it. Gay people have been discriminated against almost forever. They have fought and fought to end this and have made great progress. So why should they let this antediluvian, small-minded bigot make them take a step back? Shut them up and stop them making a fuss? It's so easy for the smug, undiscriminated-against majority to roll their eyes, eh? Here's the thing. There is a principle at stake here long after the cake would have gone stale. Sometimes the little things are important and it depends who you are. Most of the people here poo-pooing this are not gay. Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:58 PM

Steve, I think a discussion about the gay equality referendum in ireland is more important than this cake business, but carry on tilting at wind mills dont let me stop you

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:21 PM

gay equality referendum in ireland is more important than this cake business

Just because the referendum may be more important does NOT mean that "this cake business" is UNimportant.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:31 PM

and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles

Huh? Surely the whole point is that the baker did not violate his Christian principles. He decided that his principles were more important than the law of the land and paid the price for doing so. Just as other extremists do.

What moral right does a Christian fundamentalist pressure group have to insist that two people who love each other should not be married or that a raped girl must have the child that no-one wants? You really need to choose your terms carefully Pete when looking at a case involving the Christian Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:33 PM

Greg F, please justify your view of US federal and state law.

Keith. The evidence is not fully transcribed or reported or available on the internet. The judge heard it, you did not. The judge decided that the defence case that they were not discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation but on the ground only that they were free to refuse the slogan was untrue.   If you have not seen the evidence, how can you purport to impugn that?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:42 PM

Fergie above is correct.

I await any purported case opposing same sex marriage that is not in essence a matter of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:26 PM

this cake business will not change anything bigots will continue to be bigots they will contrinue to refuse to make the aforementioned cakes, but they will not give a reason neither do they have to, this has acheived absolutely nothing and will acheuive absolutely nothing, that is why it is unimportant.
serious discrimination is more important, refusal to give gays jobs, refusal to let gays inherit property from one another, this cake is a storm in a teacup

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:30 PM

Jim Carroll: to equate same sex marriage with "neo Nazism", paedophila and incest

I would submit that it was Jim Carroll, not I, who equated these things. I simply used same-sex marriage and neo-Nazism to illustrate my point. I certainly did not and would not equate them.

But since Mr. Carroll is so thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of his cause, he appears to believe that the rules of logic do not apply to him.

Mr. Carroll and others seem to believe that since their cause is so obviously right, there's no need to bother with the niceties of logical and respectful and honest discussion. Since Rupert Murdoch claims the right to distort the facts because of the righteousness of his cause, why shouldn't those on the left have the same right to use Murdochian tactics? Is that what you're telling us, Mr. Carroll?

And Ed T., I thought you were smarter than to try to silence me by nit-picking my analogies. "Black Power" is a perfectly legal slogan that supports the empowerment of an oppressed minority to overcome discrimination. Admittedly, some people viewed the slogan as threatening, but that was not the primary purpose of the slogan. "Support Gay Marriage" is also a perfectly legal slogan. But it's likely that some merchants would be unwilling to want to emblazon these slogans on the merchandise they sell. I think one would be hard-put to find a court in the United States that would compel a merchant to produce merchandise bearing such slogans.

I understand quite clearly that a judge in Northern Ireland found the merchant's unwillingness to use the slogan to be discrimination, but I think the judge's opinion went too far.That's my opinion. This opinion does not mean that I am a horrible person or an anti-gay bigot. It simply means that I think the judge was injudicious.

And then there's Steve Shaw's milk analogy. I completely agree that he should be able to go to the store and buy a pint of mild and expect an amicable transaction. I do, however, think he might meet with rejection if he were to require the merchant to decorate the milk bottle with a political slogan. I think that when a merchant or artist does custom orders, that merchant or artist should have the unquestioned right to say, "I don't want to do this."

Again, this is my opinion. I fully acknowledge that it is in disagreement with a number of our more aggressive posters, who seem to think that any opinion differing from theirs should be silenced. I hope they can learn to live with my freedom to express my opinion.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:50 PM

GSS, my advice to you is "watch the donut, not the hole". The future influence is related to case law, of coursenot about the folks in the case, nor cake. Consider this:

"" Case law is often referred to as common law in many regions of the world and is also known as judge-made law. This latter term derives from the fact that, while legislation is technically passed in most countries by a separate legislative branch, courts are often able to exercise a moderate amount of quasi-legislative power through the use of precedent. Case law is viewed by most people as a crucial part of a functioning judiciary, as it allows for courts to transform decisions that may have taken a great deal of time and energy to arrive at into a sort of de facto law, making future cases much easier to decide.""

Silence you Joe O, I am surprised you would accuse another here of that type of thing on such spongy grounds? You have a different opinion, why would you wrongly accuse another Mudcatter of such limiting your ability to make your case?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:03 PM

Ah, you're making a jump, Ed. I never suggested anyone would attempt to silence me, although I notice there were some above who attacked my religious beliefs without my even saying anything about religion. Still, we get a steady barrage of demands from our usual aggressive posters, insisting that we silence Mudcatters who express conservative ideas. We've even been reported to some sort of regulatory agency, on the charge that we were promoting bigotry by allowing conservatives to express their opinions.

My complaint here, is that people, you included, have redefined what have said, and then attacked the redefinition as if it were what I said.

And Ed, even when you disagree with me, you're always a gentleman about it. Can't say the same for a few others around here.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:11 PM

The point of my milk analogy was not to demonstrate that I enjoy amicable shopping transactions but to correct your attempt to depict the customer as aggressor and the shopkeeper as victim. The fellow who ordered the cake did not go into the shop intending to force or coerce the cake man. He went into the shop to order a cake. That's what you do in cake shops. You appear to be making a career out of misrepresenting people in this thread. Maybe that's your way of deflecting from the obstinate fact that the cake man is a dyed-in-the-wool bigot, a fact that you are strangely reluctant to take on board. He is not some poor confused soul who needs gentle education. And for all those people, including you, who are trying to defend this man's rights, just consider this, in case you've lost sight of it. Homosexuality is normal. Gay marriage is a lovely, normal idea that will serve to make many people happy, not some nasty aberration that we are reluctantly being forced to take on board. There is no reason to be gentle with people about this. There is every reason to tell people who actively oppose gay marriage that they are wrong-headed. This is not a matter of opinion. And I don't care if I lose what friends I have left by saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:37 PM

Well, Steve, actually, I believe that it's quite probably true that the shopkeeper is bigoted against gay people. And I do indeed see the shopkeeper as the transgressor in this case, and the customer a victim. But I think the judge's decision impinged on the merchant's right to free speech, a right that apparently isn't quite as free in the UK as it is in the US. I have no doubt that the merchant is wrong - I just believe that in this situation, he should have a right to to be wrong. And I while have no sympathy for the merchant, I do not think that filing a lawsuit against him is an effective way of promoting the cause of gay marriage. Boycotts and bad publicity can be far more effective tools against bigoted merchants.

And no, the act of ordering the cake was not coercion. The act of obtaining a court judgment, however, was coercion. That's why people go to court - to coerce the other person to do something that person doesn't want to do. Sometimes it's necessary, but oftentimes it backfires. In my years as a government investigator, I have learned that if you sue another person, you're very unlikely to win that person over to your side, even if you win your lawsuit. I investigated a good number of discrimination complaints over the years. I often told the complainant that even though he had a valid complaint, he might be better off to seek a more conciliatory resolution to his conflict. If he won a grievance against his boss, he might have a hard time living with that boss in years to come.

And in conclusion, although I think the merchant is a bigot, a judgment ordering him to decorate a cake with a slogan he dislikes is an affront against the artistic freedom of all artists and craftsmen.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:40 PM

Dear Ed read my post organize against the bakery, picket them and get the word out. They will fail. What does Rosa parks have to do with it, big steach I think. It was the movement that brought down the Jim crow laws. People standing up saying it's wrong. A cake law ain't quite the same thing. What next an anti assholes law. It is illegal to not extend credit to a person that never paid a bill ever. Or how about making some tattoo places to force them to put Nazi signs on people who want them. What a bunch of shit. Most gay people I know I including my daughter can handle it themselves just fine

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:51 PM

By the way there are a lot of bakeries around here that advertise they will Not put porn on any cake or any slanderous slogans to paraphrase. I guess some birthdays are wilder than others I guess. On the flip side there are bakeries that only do porn images for bachelor parties and the like. So it ain't just a gay issue

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:53 PM

quote: This is not a matter of opinion.

That really summarizes the arguments presented here in favor of gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:58 PM

This is a very good example of the real war between social conservatism and "liberalism".....the issue of homosexual "marriage" is used as a weapon to fragment and ultimately destroy Christian faith.

If I, as presently an atheist, can see this clearly, I find it incredulous that committed Christians like Joe, cannot.
His views on free speech and toleration of alternative views are laudable, but the war on faith is a thousand times more dangerous than the marriage rights of a tiny sexual minority.
Turkeys voting for Christmas, springs to mind.

The equation of homosexual "rights" issues, with Black civil rights must be especially upsetting for clear thinking US members.
Homosexuality being entirely a behavioural issue....whereas the Black population behave in manner as the white population whether they be Hetero or homo. To suggest any moral difference is of course discriminatory.

Keith is entirely correct in his appraisal of the situation, I am truly amazed at the paucity of the responses to his well made points,
do you really not know who he is referring to when he says "you people"?
Do you not feel ashamed to cower together with such stupidity and arrogance?

Simon Jenkins is one of the leading journalists in the UK, an expert on environmental issues, and a real liberal......look and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:05 PM

And I guess you would force a Jewish baker to decorate a neo-Nazi wedding cake with their images. Or the Muslim baker to put mohammad image on cakes. Insane why the hell would I give money to a bakery that doesn't want my business cause when or if my youngest gets married I will be paying for the gay cake

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:11 PM

I don't believe that the "outraged minority" here on Mudcat really give a damn about homosexual rights, the are more interested in the overthrow of social conservatism, and that means chiefly the Christian Church. Every post suppurates bile in the direction of people of faith.....yet they never recognise themselves as bigots :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:13 PM

So, old dude, can you be clear- are you actually attempting to equate porn with gay marriage? What to blazes are you talking about in organizing pickets? Talk about making little sense and over-reaction to a somewhat civil discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:15 PM

Homosexuality being entirely a behavioural issue

Not only is this incorrect, it's a disgrace that it should appear on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:35 PM

We've had lots of what-ifs in this thread. In general, these come from people supporting the cake shop bigot. I have four things to say about that. First, the people putting up the what-ifs need to tell us of cases of their what-ifs they've encountered and what was the outcome. If these things ever happen, which I doubt, then let them inform our discussion. Second, on the whole, people, barring the out-and-out insane, are not going to waste their time trying to get Jewish cake shops to make Nazi cakes, etc. Third, the law of the land always applies should common sense fail, which we hope it won't. Fourth, the cake man needs to reflect on how he can provide a fair and non-discriminating service to the public whilst there is the risk of his views precipitating unfortunate skirmishes with people belonging to minorities. Perhaps he's in the wrong trade. We really don't need people like him who pose such threats to the unfinished and right-minded business of doing away with unfair discrimination. And, dammit all, he could have held his nose and just done the bloody cake. No-one was going to die as a result. I surely can't be the only person to think that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:07 PM

No way did I ever equate that. What I said is bakeries here have rules..of their choosing. Including if you wanted a naughty girl picture on a bachelor party cake some won't do It. Others will find a bakery that fits your needs instead of forcing one. That's all

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:11 PM

And I adore my youngest daughter. I could givea shit if sshe is gay or straight. She is happy, very successful and a very good person. Her partner is also. No one in my family cares about anything but her happiness and that's what matters to all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:22 PM

And my point is i don't want dumb ass laws that serve only to tie up the court system. Ya can't argue with stupid. If someone doesn't want your business take it to someone who does. They don't understand that you can't catch gay. People are born as they are and for me God made everyone and if assholes don't get it they never will

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:15 PM

Having rules wouldn't let the bakery off the hook. Rules can be unreasonable. "No cakes for blacks" for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:28 PM

What if... from now on..

cake shops employed nightclub bouncers to stand at attention either side of the door...

"you can't come in"

"Why"

"Cuz of the rules.. now eff off !!!"😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:11 AM

The cake may be stale but the thread is refreshed. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:30 AM

So...note that Northern Ireland is one of the few places in Western Europe where gay marriage is not yet legal. Therefore, "Support Gay Marriage" is a political slogan supporting a political issue that has not yet been decided. The baker in question refused to decorate a cake with this political slogan, which he opposed. The judge said his refusal to post this slogan was discrimination against homosexuals, and therefore illegal. I'm quite convinced that the baker was probably indeed prejudiced against homosexuals, but still within his rights to refuse to produce a cake with a political slogan he opposed.

To rule that a merchant must produce merchandise promoting something he/she opposes, opens a whole can of worms. As I asked above, Would the same principle require me to make a cake praising neo-Nazis if a customer ordered it?

[for the benefit of those too dimwitted to understand, allow me to say that this is not an attempt to equate neo-Nazis with anything or anyone]

In the U.S., government authorities are generally required to allow demonstrations by anyone who behaves peaceably, no matter how repulsive the group's message might be. That's why we have had neo-Nazis marching through Jewish communities, distasteful though that may be. On the other hand, I do not believe that U.S. merchants are required to produce materials that are distasteful to them. To an American, to have a judge require a merchant to produce goods a merchant does not approve of, seems to be a violation of the merchant's freedom of speech.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:49 AM

Much of the debate about this cake has centred around "what-ifs". I don't think we can make decisions on that basis. You would thereby be reducing the cake issue to a single incident in the shop and trying to compare that with other simplistically-wrought scenarios. There was quite a lot more to it than that single moment of refusal, as the judgement document demonstrates. Of course precedents were taken into account, though exact precedents are impossible. We largely have to take the case on its merits. I've heard what-ifs of all kinds, including some on Question Time last Thursday. They all annoy me. They all sound like fall-back substitutes for taking on the real question. A UKIP-style ploy. So imagine how the neo-Nazi one went down. I understand that you were not making that equation, Joe, but it was a clumsy choice to make in the already-clumsy flurry of what-ifs.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:51 AM

I'm quite convinced that the baker was probably indeed prejudiced against homosexuals

Why?
No other complaints emerged despite the publicity.
He says he served gay folks.
Why would he not make a cake for one.

It was just the slogan, which he would have refused whoever asked.
No discrimination.

If this decision is allowed to stand, expect different activists to request the same slogan from Muslim bakers, printers etc.
How many such folk are we prepared to see dragged through the courts?

It is not reasonable to demand anyone to produce propaganda material for causes they do not approve of, or to criminalise them for refusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:53 AM

It is good to see deleted threads reappearing.
Let us not abuse the gesture.
Tear posts apart but not the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:59 AM

I do not expect that to happen. In fact, if it does I'll do a Paddy Pantsdown and eat my hat. I have a little more faith in humanity behaving itself than you have. So, the conclusion is that you think the law is an ass, eh, Keith?

We all do things whilst holding our noses. The cake man could have held his nose and done the cake and asked the fellow not to ask him again. Not a perfect solution but a better one than what happened. How about that, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:03 AM

I'm quite convinced that the baker was probably indeed prejudiced against homosexuals

Why?

Because that is what the judge decided. None of us were there. How can anyone say she was wrong without being in possession of all the facts? Simply repeating that she was wrong does not make it so. Until a higher court changes the ruling the ruling stands. No point in further speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:09 AM

Sometimes court decisions are wrong.
I think this one is.
It is OK to say that Dave.
Sorry if it offends.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:29 AM

It doesn't offend. Who said it does? It is OK to say and it is OK for me to believe an expert in the law over the speculation of a layman.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:36 AM

Steve, you seem to be saying that it would be wrong to set up a Muslim baker or printer by asking for that slogan and then dragging them through the courts for refusing.
So why was it OK to do it to a Christian?
Is that not discriminatory?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:52 AM

I am pretty sure Steve can answer for himself but if a Muslim baker refused to make a cake, with any slogan, on the grounds that the customer was gay, he or she would be subject to the same laws. If the common sense failed once again and it went to court it would be, again, up to the judge to decide if the law had been broken. The law is non discriminatory and the religion of the defendant would not be an issue.

Anyway, why did you apologise for offending me Keith? I'm puzzled.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 07:48 AM

Should the baker have been forced to produce a cake bearing the slogan "We support Gay Marriage"?

Regarding the law, the laws to criminalise homosexuality were certainly wrong. I oppose homosexual "marriage", just as I opposed criminalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:09 AM

Well, no-one set up the Irish baker. They went in to order a cake. Most normal people have got better things to do than set up cake shops and risk court cases. That what's annoying me about all this what-if stuff. And please don't tell me what I seem to be saying. Just read what I typed.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:39 AM

"Nobody wanted to set up the baker".....you must be joking!

Do you think they were not perfectly aware of the views of the cake maker? If you don't, you must be very naïve indeed....what about all the Christian guest houses which have been "set up"

There is one near me who were forced out of business rather than be dragged through court.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:43 AM

The Christian church is in the process of being "set up" at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:59 AM

You have neither evidence nor justification for those accusations. They were gay therefore they were mischief-making, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 15 - 09:26 AM

The baker first accepted the order and at a later stage refused to complete it. They were sponsored by the fundamentalist Christian action group "Christian Institute." I have no justification or evidence to say that the customer was set up but it is as likely a scenario as the baker being set up.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 28 May 15 - 09:32 AM

What if the baker (or sign writer) were to say that "content of a pornographic, religious or political nature will not be accepted" ? I think I may have seen something like that and this cake business may explain it.

It is illuminating to read through the posts that come below the link to the judgement. Several very outspoken people clearly have not read it and are talking nonsense.

This quote (from the EHCR if I understand correctly) immediately had me thinking of many below the line discussions:

"The Court re-iterates that, as enshrined in Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a 'democratic society' within the meaning of the Convention. This freedom is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends upon it. "

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 28 May 15 - 09:40 AM

There was also this:

"[79]   In McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] IRLR 872 Laws LJ said :-

22. In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and the ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatsoever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.

23. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefor it lies only in the heart of the believer who is alone bound by it. No-one else is or can be bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

24. So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."

[how do you do italics ?]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 09:43 AM

NI is a very sectarian society, everyone knows the political and religious views of business owners.....and their family history!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 15 - 10:06 AM

Gay people can now marry anywhere on our islands, and this is a victory for tolerance and diversity.

Yay!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 10:50 AM

"The Christian church is in the process of being "set up" at the present time."
No it isn't - it's in the process of being removed from its long-occupied pedal - not before time - it's done enough damage.
The idea that the bakers were 'set up' is utter nonsense and easily provable to be so.
Asher's bakery is one of a chain of six, employing over 60 people, so it was highly likely that its customers knew who the managers were, let alone knew their views on homosexuality.
The owners name is McArthur, by the way, more of a reason for them not being known by their customers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: frogprince
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:03 AM

Why in the world would anyone conclude that the baker was prejudiced against gay people? After all, all he did was express his opposition to their having the same rights as other human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:50 AM


Gay people can now marry anywhere on our islands

@stu - clearly you don't understand how our islands are goverened. There are four different jurisdictions that rule on gay marriage - it is now legal in three of the four instead of two of the four. It is still not allowed in Northern Island

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:52 AM

NI is a very sectarian society, everyone knows the political and religious views of business owners.....and their family history!

So a nation of busybodies as well? You do talk rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:57 AM

Perhaps you have not lived amongst sectarianism Steve...I have and detested it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 01:52 PM

You know, there's another possibility that hasn't been brought up: What if the news story is wrong?

I'm sorry, but I think it's preposterous that a judge in a free country would find the baker's simple refusal to print a slogan to be discrimination. I think there's more to the story that the reporter didn't report.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:19 PM

This brings to mind a Canadian law case related to First Nations right, under an old treaty to fish commercially without a government licence.

After years of foot dragging, and government enforcement halting such fishing, a First Nations group reported to fisheries enforcement agents that "an indian" was fishing eels at a specific location and an arrest followed. This set in motion alegal case that eventually ended up in the highest court for a ruling-and the First Nations case was successful. This one case, which had little to do with eels, had enormous impact on affirming First Nations treaty rights and in future relationships (natural resources and otherwise) between all First Nations and the government far beyond fish.

So, while this case was kinda about "cake", I predict it would be legal folly to judge that it will not be legally interpreted far beyond tasty pastry and will not have a broader legal impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:46 PM

I'm sorry, but I think it's preposterous that a judge in a free country would find the baker's simple refusal to print a slogan to be discrimination.

Yes, and I suppose you'd also think it's preposterous that a judge in a free country would find a simple refusal to serve Negroes at a lunch counter to be discrimination as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:53 PM

Here may be an anomaly - and please correct me if I am wrong ???

But, in present day UK can pub/club doormen refuse you entry,
and bar staff refuse to serve a person and demand they leave,
without giving any reason at all...??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:10 PM

Joe, in a "free"country there are still areas where that freedom is limited, and when it comes to Christians convictions, as in this case, the politically correct party line is, I suspect, usually likely to win in the UK.       Sure, the judge is the professional , but I have not read anything that there was any other issue involved. If there were any proof that the bakers had any animosity against homosexuals , other than their declining to decorate a cake with a message that offended their Christian belief, the press would likely have reported it.........though of course, not forgetting the old adage about the press and damned lies !.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:26 PM

Good grief, there are enough sour grapes around here to make a gallon of gutrot. Great post, Greg. A sane corrective to the explosion of nonsense being spouted around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Hopfolk
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:32 PM

Of all the Cake shops in all the country, ya had to walk into THIS one!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:42 PM

You know, there's another possibility that hasn't been brought up: What if the news story is wrong?

I'm sorry, but I think it's preposterous that a judge in a free country would find the baker's simple refusal to print a slogan to be discrimination. I think there's more to the story that the reporter didn't report.

-Joe Offer-

Huh? What is this supposed to mean? The court's ruling is freely available, it has been posted here and it is full of detail. Denial is useless. You have as much on this as it is possible to have. Wassup, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:48 PM

"What if the news story is wrong?"

"simple refusal to print a slogan"

The actual judgement is linked above ( http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/%5B2015%5D%20NICty%202/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm )

Seems clear, but not simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: fat B****rd
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:39 PM

The Ashers are appealing the decision so this will run and run.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:49 PM

In this presentation, history professor, Peggy Pascoe, disvusses the history of mescegenation laws in the USA and the relationship to gay marriage laws.


Gay Marriage-miscegenation 

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:55 PM

I posted the last link, as it relates to earlier posts I put forward suggsting similarities between current gay legal issues and past USA racial issues. (To which, recall some posted puzzlement as to why therecwoukd be any possible association).

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:13 PM

Yes, and I suppose you'd also think it's preposterous that a judge in a free country would find a simple refusal to serve Negroes at a lunch counter to be discrimination as well.

Because that's the same as putting a slogan on a cake........good grief, get a grip man!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:17 PM

Principles, Guest, principles. I recommend you acquire some.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:49 PM

That would be the straw man principle right, something you and Greg F have acquired and use have no qualms using to obfuscate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 05:58 PM

You clearly have no idea what "straw man" means, though you clearly think that using the term makes you sound clever. Now, as I have no idea which "Guest" I'm talking to, if you don't mind I'll waste no more time on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:05 PM

Nice exit....bye, bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 May 15 - 12:08 AM

Well, if you can believe the Internet (and who doesn't?) this has blown up into a World War of Cakes. Google bakery gay marriage for the sordid details. I applaud and support the Colorado bakery that was under investigation for refusing to make anti-gay cakes with "God Hates Gays" and similar slogans. The Colorado bakery was accused of discriminating against a customer's Christianity, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rejected the complaint. I read the Northern Ireland Court Judgment cited above, but I still don't quite believe it. While the act of refusing to design a cake doesn't seem to me to be discrimination, the defendants' pseudo-religious blatherings in the court file make it clear that they are bigoted against gays.

Whatever the case, this matter has caused widespread harassment of bakeries, on both sides of the issue. I hope the judge in Northern Ireland is satisfied that justice has been protected.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:49 AM

It is not the same as refusing a customer on grounds of race.
That is a straw man argument.

The slogan was refused not any customer.
That is their case.
It would have been refused whoever the customer.

It is illegal to discriminate against the person but not the slogan.
The bakery is going to appeal the ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 04:21 AM

"Whatever the case, this matter has caused widespread harassment of bakeries"
First we've heard of it over here - can you let us have the information so we can pass it on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:51 AM

"The bakery is going to appeal the ruling."
The bakery are being bankrolled by a fundamentalist Christian group, 'The Christian Institute' whose aims are to combat 'political correctness' and allow "free speech" on all matters no matter whi it hurts,- they seem to have a thing about gays and have set Peter Tatchell in their sights in Britain.
They have declared that they will bankroll Asher's Bakery into Europe if necessary
THe customer who requested the cake was accused here of mounting a test case to promote an agenda - now it has been shown that the opposite is the case and it is Christian fundamentalists who are prepared to support bigoted behaviour to drive their own agenda.
When the result of the referendum was announced, you smugly declared "welcome to the 21st century" - are we going to see Northern Ireland congratulated for remaining in the medieval past?
Of all the places in these islands, the British bit of Ireland remains alone in standing out against mixed-sex marriage.
Those who support gay marriage but are doing their best to support its opponents seem to be living up tho the punch line of the old story of the recruit trying to dodge the draft by claiming poor eyesight - "Your mouth may be saying one thing, but your dick's pointing straight to West Point".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:53 AM

One of the other Christian targets of The Christian Institute is divorce, b.t.w. - a real modern issue!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:11 AM

Bakeries have been harassing   folks with calories forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:11 AM

When the result of the referendum was announced, you smugly declared "welcome to the 21st century" - are we going to see Northern Ireland congratulated for remaining in the medieval past?

Obviously not Jim.
The two statements would be incompatible!

THe customer who requested the cake was accused here of mounting a test case to promote an agenda - now it has been shown that the opposite is the case and it is Christian fundamentalists who are prepared to support bigoted behaviour to drive their own agenda.

It has not been shown at all.
A recognised gay activist chose a baker he knew would not write the slogan.
He could easily have chosen a different baker, as he did later.
He was setting them up.

The poor bakers were in no position to refuse that finacial help.
No-one else offered any.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: bubblyrat
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:31 AM

All this seems to suggest that the baker,because of his personal views (to which he is entitled ) is being discriminated against by a "gay" person who has an axe to grind.Why don't "gay" people just get a life,like everyone else, and look on the bright side ??

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:35 AM

"The poor bakers"
Six bakeries - 60 employees - Christian fundamentalists stepped in
"The two statements would be incompatible!"
Why - if Gay marriage is a welcome move in Southern Ireland certainly enough to make you strut, why is it acceptable for it to remain outlawed in this particular part of Britain?
"It has not been shown at all."
Yes it has - the fundamentalists are bankrolling it as part of their campaign to keep their particular brand of Christianity a feature of everyday life (along with opposing divorce) - a test case - "all the way to Europe, if necessary".
"A recognised gay activist chose a baker he knew would not write the slogan."
Not true in any aspect - the there is no suggestion that the customer chose the bakery - that is pure invention on your part, he didn't know they would refuse, in fact they accepted the order and then changed their minds.
"He could easily have chosen a different baker, as he did later."
As has been pointed out - he had no way of knowing that he would be refused - it was part of a chain of 6 bakeries - there is no evidence that they were in the habit of refusing such requests - pure invention on your part.
"He was setting them up."
No he wasn't - he was ordering a cake for a private party- there has never been a suggestion of otherwise (except by the 'Christians' here)
"No-one else offered any."
They didn't need to - these are the owners of 6 Bakeries hardly breadline cases (pun intended).
If they could't afford to go to court, they really didn't have to
You now appear to be making it up as you go along.
This is now a case of Christian fundamentalism gone mad on a subject that is done and dusted throughout these Islands (except British Ireland) being defended by people who claim to support Gay marriage - Alice in Wonderland writ large!!
If you have any proof of your claims feel free to put it up
I wait with interest to lear of the widespread harassment of Bakeries
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:39 AM

"A recognised gay activist chose a baker he knew would not write the slogan"
How did he know that?
Had he or a friend heard the baker make anti gay remarks?
Had the baker written anywhere anti gay sentiments?
Was it a random choice to see what would happen?
If the baker had said yes, would the activist have approached every baker in town until he found one who refused.
Since you claim to know the activists motives perhaps you would tell us which of the above apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:56 AM

It has not been shown at all.

So, there is no proof that the Christian Institute are driving their own agenda and yet you say

A recognised gay activist chose a baker he knew would not write the slogan.

That has not been shown either! How did he know? The judge has ruled the discrimination was on the grounds of sexual orientation and not politically motivated. I still believe the decision of a legal expert over and above the assumptions of a layman who was not there.

Still intrigued as to what you were apologising to me for, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:10 AM

So, there is no proof that the Christian Institute are driving their own agenda

Because they are not.
A case was brought against the baker who then had to defend themselves.

A recognised gay activist chose a baker he knew would not write the slogan.

Yes.
It is no secret that they are Christians.
I am sure that is why they were chosen. (Just my opinion Dave, but it makes perfect sense.)

there is no evidence that they were in the habit of refusing such requests

Of course not.
How often do you suppose controversial poltical slogans are requsted on cakes?
It never happens.
It only happened in this instance in order to entrap a christian baker (IMO Dave).

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:23 AM

"It is no secret that they are Christians"
I am sure that is why they were chosen.
(Just my opinion Dave, but it makes perfect sense.)

So your statement is pure fiction,made to justify a biased opinion.
You have no concrete evidence what so ever to prove your case.
Sums you up,I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:24 AM

"I am sure" - says it all doesn't it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:29 AM

Yes indeed. It is your opinion, only that. Yet you keep stating it as if it is fact and as long as you do I will point out it is just speculation.

While we are on about silly speculation, how do you know that, in the time between accepting the order and then changing their minds, they did not contact CI to see if they would be interested in a test case? It is as valid a scenario as yours.

You obviously read my post. Still not want to tell me what you apologised for?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:37 AM

Without wishing to get enmeshed in Keith's web of lies here, I would like to point out to him that "Christian baker" does not equate to "bigoted anti-gay baker".   The accusation that the "activist" was deliberately trying to set up a test case is entirely without foundation and it is entirely improper of Keith to assert this unless he has solid evidence to that effect, not just a twisted load of circumstantial false logic. I'd also add that any court detecting an element of mischief in the actions of anyone trying to "set up" a bakery, or whatever, would most likely throw out the case. This did not happen in this instance, so, if Keith or anyone else here wishes to dispute the verdict, they should give us chapter and verse on the points in the ruling that they find fault with instead of making generalised and unfounded accusations that sound like no more than Christian sour grapes. Finally, if I could have thirty seconds with that baker, I'd say to him that a Christian is someone who follows the tenets laid down by Jesus Christ. Jesus never said that marriage had to be between a man and a woman, nothing remotely in that ballpark. Don't quote me, but I'd have thought that good Christians shouldn't really be making up rules as they go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:43 AM

"A case was brought against the baker who then had to defend themselves."
And now the Christian Institute has offered to bankroll them right into Europe - an agenda
"It is no secret that they are Christians."
Isn't it - and even so, are you claiming that all Christians would refuse such an order - does bigotry apply to all Christians?
Have you evidence that the bakery declares itself Christian NO YOU HAVE NOT
leae stop making thns up
Jim Carroll -

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:51 AM

In the nearest town to where I live, the bakery is owned by friends of mine who are Christians. Their views are well known and they are strong supporters of the Salvation Army.

I know for sure that these people would refuse to produce a cake which contained a slogan supporting homosexual "marriage".
They would never produce material bearing political or religious slogans to which they were opposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcernd
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:57 AM

So maybe they would have to refuse requests for other political or religious slogans to avoid being discriminatory.

But I hope they could produce their own-design cakes with any 'legal' slogan.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:07 AM

Without wishing to get enmeshed in Keith's web of lies here,

Keith does not lie Steve.
If you can not produce any lie of mine, and you can't, you should withdraw that nasty, false accusation.


I would like to point out to him that "Christian baker" does not equate to "bigoted anti-gay baker".

On what grounds do you accuse this baker of being bigoted and anti-gay?
The bakers believe in the traditional meaning of marriage, that is all.
You are making baseless assumptions about them which they adamantly deny.

Have you evidence that the bakery declares itself Christian NO YOU HAVE NOT

Yes I have.
Their website explains that the very name of the bakery is a biblical reference.

You people are getting very nasty about all this, and making it a cause celebre.
Why?
Someone refused to write "support gay marriage" because they do not support gay marriage.
That is it.

Are you sure you would be denouncing the baker so fiercely if they were Muslims refusing the same slogan?
Many do not support gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:16 AM

Keith just said that grounds of sexuality are different to that of race.

No it isn't. In Northern Ireland as in the rest of The UK, race and sexual orientation, together with gender and disability are aspects that it is illegal to discriminate against. If the bakery wanted a licence to conduct gay weddings, that is the one single stain where religious bigotry has yet to be put down for good in law in Northern Ireland. It won't be long though.

If you must spread bigoted lied to bolster your sick superstition, remember that normal people know the law as well as religious people and respect it even more.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:20 AM

On what grounds do you accuse this baker of being bigoted and anti-gay?
The bakers believe in the traditional meaning of marriage, that is all.
You are making baseless assumptions about them which they adamantly deny.

They are not baseless. The judge found them guilty of discrimination. That is an act of bigotry. Whether you agree with the judges ruling or not is irrelevant. The accusation id far from groundless. It is proven in a court of law. What is so difficult about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:22 AM

All this seems to suggest that the baker,because of his personal views (to which he is entitled ) is being discriminated against by a "gay" person who has an axe to grind.Why don't "gay" people just get a life,like everyone else, and look on the bright side ??

You're joking, I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:25 AM

"I know for sure that these people would refuse to produce a cake which contained a slogan supporting homosexual "marriage"
Apart from confirming that your Salvation Army supporters are bigots, what does this have anything to do with the argument?
Can I reiterate that Asher's is a string of bakeries spreed over the city of Belfast - hardly your cozy local corner shop where everybody knows everybody else's business
Neither is it a hand-to-mouth enterprise that can't afford to pay for legal action and is forced to go to a fundamentalist organisation for financial backing
This is an agenda driven test-case by a group that specialises in tthe type of activities that have given the Christian Church the unsavoury reputation that it richly deserves.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:46 AM

Keith does not lie Steve.
If you can not produce any lie of mine, and you can't, you should withdraw....

In the face of a court ruling to the contrary you are saying that a gay activist deliberately set up the cake shop. Nothing that I've read in the court narrative supports this, and, as you were not there, you have no evidence to support what is a most unlikely scenario, especially given the fact that the shop originally accepted the commission. As you don't seem to mind mouthing this unfounded accusation, apparently because you're siding with the bakery, you are clearly not averse to lying, are you?

On what grounds do you accuse this baker of being bigoted and anti-gay?
The bakers believe in the traditional meaning of marriage, that is all.

That is not all. They believe in what they regard as the traditional meaning of marriage, fine. Then they acted on that belief by discriminating against a gay person. It's a classic, Keith. It's always fine to hold whatever beliefs light your fire. It is not fine to enact those beliefs in a way that disadvantages minorities. That's the definition of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 29 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith,your quote (pasted below) gives the origin of the name as biblical,nowhere does the web site state the owners chose it specifically because they are Christian. The fact they are Christian only emerged after their refusal to carry out the order because of their beliefs.
Your case that they were "set up" still seems to be purely your personal opinion.



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.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 09:42 AM

"That's the definition of bigotry." Is it ???

The NI bakery were found guilty of discrimination and the court judgement gives a good idea of what discrimination means in thet contexts. akenaton's Salvation Army friends would probably also be being discriminatory (if they did a 'provide your message' service).

But is that, in itself, enough to be bigots ?

The only Salvation Army people I have known well enough to get into conversation with (as neighbours and as colleagues) were extraordinarily tolerant of other religions (or, in my case, lack of them). The neighbour (who had some sort of local leadership role in the Salvation Army) was, back in the 1970's, the only person for whom religion was an imnportant part of his life (and that includes national religious leaders in the media) who I ever heard ever heard express the views that a Christian leader in Northern Ireland was 'preaching hate'.

I don't 'get' what the Salvation Army are about, and it would not suite me, but calling someone a bigot for being uncomforatble about something which a democratic societies representatives have (rightly in my view) agreed is 'normal' seems a bit strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 29 May 15 - 09:44 AM

To continue. So is saying that a fundamentalist religious leader 'preaches hate' bigotry ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 15 - 10:36 AM

But is that, in itself, enough to be bigots ?

Yup.

So is saying that a fundamentalist religious leader 'preaches hate' bigotry ?

Nope. If in fact that's what he/she is doing, and a lot of them do.

Next question.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 29 May 15 - 10:52 AM

OK. I thought bigotry was something stronger. I will have to seek out a new word for what I had in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:00 AM

Well I know I haven't got a degree in matters religious, but even so I don't know how I'm supposed to know that Ashers is a biblical name. Although I can't be certain, I have my doubts as to whether the commissioner of the cake knew it either.

You are not a bigot for thinking something. You are a bigot if your utterances or actions cause disadvantage to a person or a particular group of people simply because of your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:22 AM

I think we have a problem with definitions here Steve. I thought bigotry was along the lines of what the wikipedia page leads off with "Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc"

Your "utterances or actions [that] cause disadvantage to a person or a particular group" are what I think of as discrimination.

From that NI court judgement it can be seen that discrimination law covers discrimination about things that are not in themselves, or the in style of discrimination, related. For example I guess much discrimination against disabled people is when they are less profitable customers than able-bodies people - because of the expense of access etc.

My suggestion above of a cake shop saying it would not produce messages of a "sexual, politcal or religious nature" allows people to keep their bogoited state of mind to themselves. Like it or not accepting gays as normal like everyone else is a democratic decision, not one that 100% of the population are comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:47 AM

Keith just said that grounds of sexuality are different to that of race.
No. Keith did not say it because he does not believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:53 AM

Well I do. Issues of race, sexuality, gender and disability are all different to each other. That they are able to share a place in discrimination legislation does not change that. Regarding then as 'not different' makes it harder to deal with any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:59 AM

Steve, I did not and do not lie.
I believe that the baker was set up and stated my belief.

The bakers refused to write a slogan that they disagree with.
That does not make them anti gay bigots whatever the judge said.
Over a third of the population of Ireland do not support gay marriage.
That does not make them all anti gay bigots.
Some gay people do not support gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 12:08 PM

"I'm all for stamping out discrimination. But that's not what the McArthurs did to Gareth Lee. Their consciences simply wouldn't allow them go against the Bible. And now they've been dragged through the courts for it.

And, yes, I feel sorry for them – not because I agree with their beliefs but because they are now being pilloried for them.

If Gareth Lee wanted to make a point at a time Ireland was deciding on gay marriage, why not ask a Muslim bakery to make a cake with a slogan supporting it? I suspect he wouldn't dare – yet two middle-aged, peace-loving Christians were fair game.

Christians get a bad rap in this country. We're happy to protect the beliefs of Muslims, gays, ethnic minorities, fatties. But no one gives a stuff about Christians who are increasingly portrayed as evil old bigots."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/discrimination-case-over-gay-wedding-5748247

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 15 - 12:55 PM

Keith A of Hertford: " But no one gives a stuff about Christians who are increasingly portrayed as evil old bigots."

...but none care call THAT bigotry......or hypocrisy....but, one could rationalize that away, if it 'suits their agenda'....and then, insist on being blinder than a bat...and deceive as many people as they can, along the way....because the larger group of deceived people there are, surrounding themselves, the more they are 'comforted' that the fairytale is the truth.

....not that ANY of those people, 'gives a stuff about Christians' or really, anyone, but their own fragile delusion!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:02 PM

and deceive as many people as they can, along the way....because the larger group of deceived people there are, surrounding themselves, the more they are 'comforted' that the fairytale is the truth.

Talking about religion, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:19 PM

"I believe that the baker was set up and stated my belief."
You have no grounds for this belief whatever - there is not a shred of evidence anywhere to back it up and it defies all logic that he should have been.
there is no record of the baker ever stating his opinions before, and no record of the bakery ever refusing such an order, so there is no reason why they should have been targeted
The man

You appear to want it to be true - says more about you than it does about the case.
"The bakers refused to write a slogan that they disagree with."
The Bakers also made their views on homosexuality known, both during the traial and later, to the press.
"Over a third of the population of Ireland do not support gay marriage."
A great many of these wold heve been brought up as Catholics - the Catholic church is an open homophobic organisation.
That atmosphere makes for anti-gay bigotry - whatever colour you paint it.
A reminder of what the church aims to do with people's heads
" "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:44 PM

Christians who are increasingly portrayed as evil old bigots."

Not at all Goofus- just evil old bigots who are increasingly portrayed as evil old bigots - and not before time.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 15 - 02:23 PM

Greg F: ""....Christians who are increasingly portrayed as evil old bigots.""

You are quoting me from a quote, that I was quoting from another poster and addressing...
....you must be one of those 'smart people(?)' who only read to reply...but not to understand.....

Agenda gets in your eyes??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 02:46 PM

Thinking about the 'se-up' theory, how's this for a far more likely scenario
A gay man orders his cake for a private party (fact)
The bakery accepts the order (fact)
The sky-pilot fundamentalists get wind of it and persuade him to change his mind - (hypothesis)
They offer to finance him if there are any repercussions (fact)
There you have it, motive, means and opportunity, as Beckett (sighhhhh) is often saying to Castle
Motive
The Christian Institute is a fundamentalist organisation whose job it is to find 'Christian' issues and campaign on them - their sole raison d'etre
There is no better time to mount a test case, with a referendum on same-sex marriage among the Taigues down South, in the offing.
The baker can have no great objection as he has made his views on homosexuality known during the trial and to the press (a ripe plum just waiting to be picked).
Means
The Christian Institute is a wealthy and well-supported organisation.
- lotsa, lotsa cash to hand - enough to take any case "to the European Court if necessary".
Opportunity
Plenty of that in British Northern Ireland, where homophobia is so much a part of the Establishment culture that it alone in these Islands still holds out on gay marriage.
There you go - far more logical than just wishing there to be a Gay agenda.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:00 PM

According to this Telegraph article, Ashers is well known to be a Christian bakery.

I am sure that is why they were selected.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11617624/Religious-faith-and-homosexuality-the-perfect-recipe-for-intolerance.html

The fact remains that the bakers did not and do not refuse to serve gay folk.
They only refuse to write political slogans that conflict with their own views.
You are allowed to discriminate aginst political slogans.
The judge or the law is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:03 PM

I know we are repeating ourselves here but, the way some folks post here, you'd have thought that they told the customer....no way mate, we don't serve queers ere......   no, as the mirror columnist stressed, it was a stand on the bible , not any kind of antagonism against any individual whatever their sexual activity. ie they would serve the customer, serve the cake, but could not in good conscience supply the message.   if you want to call that bigotry, I hope you find such interpretation comforting in your bigoted attitude to Christians !. well maybe not too comfortable.....    the homosexual activists feelings were hurt were they ?. poor soul....he certainly would soon crumble if he got the abuse Christians get here . maybe I should start throwing my toys out the pram !

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:59 PM

You may be assured that gay people down the years have suffered a damn sight more abuse than you could ever imagine, much of it from Christians. I've decided to refrain from name-calling around here, but it would be a dereliction of all my principles if I failed to point out to you that your post is replete with the most obnoxious kind of hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:00 PM

Keith A - "why not ask a Muslim bakery to make a cake with a slogan supporting it?"

I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that if a non Muslim made this request of a Muslim baker, was refused it and tried to make a public issue of it he would be called an Islamophobe for that by the usual suspects here.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:30 PM

Whatifwhatifwhatifwhatifwhatifwhatifwhatifwhatifwhatif.....there, that should cover it. Do grow up, you what-if babies.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:32 PM

before the mudcat cake thread.. before reading anything else anywhere..

I caught a segment of a TV news item where the baker in the spotlight
was making the most of his few minutes of fame in front of the cameras..

that baker, the man being championed by people of faith and other sympathisers,
displayed himself to be quite an unlikable mean spirited character..

ok.. for what it's worth... that was just my own instant reaction and opinion of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:33 PM

Agenda gets in your eyes??

And you were agreeing with and amplifying that statement, Goofus.

Foot get in your mouth?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:47 PM

another straw man argument again, perhaps, steve. homosexuals may well have suffered a great deal" down the years" but we are talking about one man who said he felt hurt because a baker did not wish to go against his conscience. there is no evidence of any animosity against the complainant. if that constitutes the " most obnoxious kind of hypocrisy " in your book, then so be it !.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:27 PM

Hitshomehitshomehitshomehitshomehitshomehitshomehitshome.....right Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:36 PM

another straw man argument again, perhaps, steve

Steve appears to not have a grasp of the meaning of the fallacy that is termed the "straw man" so don't confuse him overly with such esoteric terminology.....keep it simple for his sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:42 PM

Grasping at straws Keith
Nowhere has there been a suggestion of a "set-up" - only from you.
Don't you think the press, the media or the trial defence would have missed it if it had been an option - not a mention - all your own work - unless you can show different, of course.
For someone who claims not to be homophobic, you are going to great lengths to make a silk purse out of a sow,s ear.
Your rather strange 'Telegraph' article seems to be suggesting that the customer was at fault for not accepting the baker's bigoted and insulting behaviour because they were Christian - par for the course in British Ireland..
As I said - grasping at straws.
I think your cover is well and truly blown, don't you?
"but we are talking about one man who said he felt hurt because a baker did not wish to go against his conscience"
Well no, we are talking about a convicted bigot who has enlisted the aid of a fundamentalist Christian group to facilitate his bigotry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:09 PM

Neither our esteemed Guest nor pete has the faintest idea what "straw man" means. To manufacture said straw man, or Aunt Sally as we call it here in Kernow, one has to misrepresent one's opponent's position, then knock down that misrepresentation. It does not mean "something Steve said that I disagree with". Now if either pete or our brave, anonymous (yeah, sure, heheh) guest would like to point to any misrepresentation I've conjured up, only to then knock it down, well let's have the details of the charge spelled out. Alternatively, might I respectfully suggest that they both toddle off, tails twixt legs, to look it up on wiki or in a dictionary, then blush silently for an hour or two as they realise what complete arses they've made of their trollish selves.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:09 PM

there is no evidence of any animosity against the complainant

Apparently you have not actually read any of the links that have been posted about the case, pete.

Are you like Keith, who "knows" all about things he's never read or studied, or is this simply an article of faith with you, and you need no evidence to back up your "belief"?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:26 PM

another straw man argument again, perhaps, steve. homosexuals may well have suffered a great deal" down the years" but we are talking about one man who said he felt hurt because a baker did not wish to go against his conscience. there is no evidence of any animosity against the complainant. if that constitutes the " most obnoxious kind of hypocrisy " in your book, then so be it !.

Well, pete, we know you can neither read nor write, but, fool that I am, I'll have another go. You called a gay man who was discriminated against by the cake shop man a "poor soul" pejoratively, and juxtaposed his situation with that of the Christians who get "abused" on this website (I'm not a Christian myself, but I've been called more names here, including by moderators, than anyone else on this board, but hey ho). I told you in different words that whatever abuse of Christians you think you see here, it is as nothing compared to the abuse that gay people have suffered down the years. You don't want to acknowledge that, it seems. That would appear to make you a homophobe, though who am I to judge. Whatever you are, I don't think you're very nice. And stop being a sheep and burbling on about straw men when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 May 15 - 10:48 PM

As I stated above, if you Google for bakery gay marriage, you will see that there have been similar cases making bakers miserable all over the English-speaking world, whether they are for gay marriage or against it.

Seems to me that a flurry of lawsuits is not going to win any friends for the cause of gay marriage, or for the cause of anti-gay religion.

There must be a better alternative to lawsuits. Let the bakers get back to baking cakes, fer crissake.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:47 PM

Joe Offer: "Let the bakers get back to baking cakes, fer crissake."

Right!!...and musicians SHOULD be about the music!!....not stupid political agendas built on 'maybes' 'suggests', 'possibles', 'may suggests', etc etc...

Here I think Leonard Cohen said it all in the first verse, and several times after....:
Evancho & Hollens, done A Capella....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:12 AM

Greg F(again): " And you were agreeing with and amplifying that statement, Goofus.
Foot get in your mouth?"

At least we have something in common....neither one of us know what you're talking about!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:13 AM

If you're going to try to make a point with a Cohen song then use Cohen, not those two who are too pretty for their own good. Evancho was a phenom when she was a kid, but now she hits the notes without really having a pretty voice. The character that Cohen brings is what makes the song work.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:17 AM

"As I stated above, if you Google for bakery gay marriage, you will see that there have been similar cases making bakers miserable all over the English-speaking world"
I'm sure the slave-owners in the South felt exactly the same Joe - "why can't we get on with picking cotton without this fuss?"
Poor them
The bulk of news items in your link are reports of the Asher's case, a couple are from the U.S. (one dated 2013) - hardly world-wide fallout (or even rest-of-Ireland fallout) from recent events.
Perhaps people are coming to the conclusion that they don't have to put up with discrimination any more.
Perhaps it's time they ot their act together and set up a few bigots just to expose them for what they ate - bigots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:31 AM

I know it was a slip of the fingers and I am not taking the piss, Jim, honest, but I could not help but laugh at people eating bigots :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:34 AM

Joe. So lawsuits don't help causes?

How are you getting in over there. Does segregation mean twice as many buses on the street? Just think, if you have a few law suits, one day a black man could be President. Who knows? A few years later you may even be able to vote for a woman.

If you are in business either side of the pond, you cannot refuse business on the grounds of discrimination. Full stop.

As Dave said, in this case a court weighed up the evidence and gave a judgement. Mind you, keep going pete, Keith, Goofus, myriad "guest" apologists and even Joe..

Your outrageous sense of morality gives normal people an insight into how superstition fucks you up. You really are at the level of Akenaton on this one. The fact he doesn't need a bible to hide behind just shows the difference between having a view and being told what your view is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:40 AM

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.
They serve gay folk all the time and served this person.

No-one, whatever their trade, can be made by law to write stuff that they disagree with.

If you can be awarded £500 for every refusal, why wouldn't people demand lefty businesses produce right wing material?

Muslim businesses would be a really easy target.
"Support Gay Marriage" would catch most of them.
"Support Free Expression" with a cartoon of the Prophet would get the rest.
Would you be happy with those consequences Steve?
Not just a "what if" but a "why not"

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:59 AM

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.

People don't forget so quickly, Keith, and I think I only pointed it out yesterday but just in case...

This is just your opinion. The judge said they did discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:39 AM

What if, what if, what if, Keith. Why not? Because the what-ifs are all made up, that's why not (I could use the terminology of Terbus and yerself, made-up shit, but I won't demean myself). They did not happen. What's more, your what-ifs are all predicated on someone going in to set up the baker. Not the same thing, as that did not happen, and, as I have said, a judge detecting mischief would throw the case out. If perchance he was forced by technicalities to favour the mischief-maker, he'd make him pay the costs.

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.
They serve gay folk all the time...

So they discriminate against straight folk then...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:41 AM

Terbus lost an i... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Thompson
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:01 AM

In Northern Ireland they call this 'whataboutery'.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:06 AM

Good word. The whole thing is a bit of an embuggerance. Thanks to Terry Pratchett for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:41 AM

Dave, thanks for reminding me that I am disagreeing with the judge.
I had not forgotten, but thanks.

Steve,
What's more, your what-ifs are all predicated on someone going in to set up the baker.

No it is not.
If the judgement stands then anyone can demand anyone to print anything and be compensated for every refusal.
BNP ads. in the Guardian.
"Support Gay Marriage" and "Support Free Expression" with a cartoon of the Prophet for Muslims.

The judgement will be overthrown because apart from the injustice, the consequences would be damaging to society.

I think the judge was a fool Dave.
Sometimes they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:45 AM

"The bakers did not discriminate against anyone."
Oh dear - I do wish you "!I'm in favour of mixed sex marriages" bods would read the facts
The bakers discriminated against a gay man by refusing to accept a legitimate, perfectly legal order.
They were found guilty of doin so and unless the fundamentalist -backed appeal succeeds, that remains the case.
Th fact that they are prepared to take gays money over the counter is immaterial - they have expressed their prejudice in biblical terms. and have been found guilty of doing so.
"No-one, whatever their trade, can be made by law to write stuff that they disagree with."
So my local printer is quite withing his rights to refuse to produce a booklet I'm planning because he disagrees with my definition of folk song
"Curiouser and curiouser"
All you've manages to convince anybody of is where you stand on Gay marriage Keith - methinks, thou protesteth too much - but thanks for the heads-up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:14 AM

The bakers discriminated against a gay man by refusing to accept a legitimate, perfectly legal order.

No they did not.
He had been served before.
They did not know he was gay.
They only objected to the slogan.
You do not have to write stuff you do not like.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:18 AM

If the judgement stands then anyone can demand anyone to print anything and be compensated for every refusal.

Not so. Every case is different. Circumstances alter cases. As we saw in the court transcript (sorry if that's the wrong expression), details of every circumstance are gone over in minute detail. For your silly prediction to definitely come true, every single detail of the case would have to be identical to this one. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the finding would be the same. An important element in this case is that the shop was not deliberately set up. That creates a vital part of the precedent. In any future case, the possibility of such mischief would be to the fore in any judgement. Judges do not care for vexatious litigants. Your persistence in this is very telling, Keith. You're even resorting to calling the judge a fool now. You are not telling us the truth about your real standpoint on homosexuality and gay marriage, are you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:20 AM

So, if the bakery was known to the run by people with strong Christian principles, what if the baker had refused to make a cake with a message that would be found offensive by many Christians ? Something that would be abusive or offensive if said to the baker's face with the intention of being offensive or insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:30 AM

An important element in this case is that the shop was not deliberately set up.

No it is not.
Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up.
He would wouldn't he.
So would someone making EXACTLY THE SAME request to a Muslim business.

Every case is different. Circumstances alter cases.
Same case, same cicumstance, but different religion.
Perhaps the law should discriminate between religions.
Make it OK for any except Christians to refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:11 AM

"Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up."
Perhaps he isn't a member of Mudcat - it took somebody who "supports" gay marriage as much as you do to dream up that one
That's one you made earlier, so to speak
The slogan the bakers objected to was an expression of protest against the same bigotry that was displayed by them by refusing to supply it.
Still wanna be a judge, Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:12 AM

Same case, same cicumstance, but different religion.

Different shop, different customer, different cake man, different town, different time, different way of asking, and a heads-up for judges on the possibility of mischief. Yeah, Keith, identical. As for the setup you allege, you are conveniently forgetting that there was no issue when the cake was first ordered. The bloke thought he was going to get his cake. So where's the setup, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:16 AM

So, if the bakery was known to the run by people with strong Christian principles, what if the baker had refused to make a cake with a message that would be found offensive by many Christians ? Something that would be abusive or offensive if said to the baker's face with the intention of being offensive or insulting.

Well, if that ever happens, let's see, eh? What other answer can there possibly be to all these what-ifs/whatabouteries?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:37 AM

The slogan the bakers objected to was an expression of protest against the same bigotry that was displayed by them by refusing to supply it.

No it was not.
They support the existing law.
That does not make anyone a bigot Jim.
More than a third of the poulation of Ireland agree with them.
Polls show that 70% in the North support the Bakers.

Well, if that ever happens, let's see, eh?

Let's see what Steve?
There is nothing to stop "activists" making an issue by putting the same request to Muslim businesses.
How many Muslim families are you prepared to see dragged to court like this Christian family?
That is equality for you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:40 AM

Steve Shaw. It was a "what if" intended to support your points regarding the detail of the particular case and there being is no evidence of a 'set-up'

The court made reference to legislation relevant in that situation. I suspect that other legislatoin would be relevant, for example, in the case of the "what if" referring to Muslim sign writers.

I would be very surprised if any printer asked to produce a 1000 leaflets with the slogan 'Muslims go home' or 'hang the blacks' could not find a legal reason to refuse the order. They are not the same sort of 'slogan' as the message on this cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:41 AM

I was also, yet again, minded of sloppy journalism in your newspaper of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:44 AM

Belfast Telegraph,

"Things were going well for the family business until a year ago, when Gareth Lee asked Ashers bakery to make a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' on it. Mr Lee had used the bakery before and the company were - and remain - happy to serve him.

As Ashers' barrister said time and again during the hearing, "it was the content of the cake, not the characteristics of the customer that were critical to their decision". The company initially accepted the order, but later contacted Mr Lee to say that they could not fulfil the order as they are a Christian business. They apologised and arranged for a refund."

"The judge, to the surprise of many, found against Ashers on all counts, and even the European Convention on Human Rights couldn't save the company.

Given that the McArthurs did not know the sexual orientation of the customer, it is difficult to comprehend how they discriminated directly on this ground. The judge found that the McArthurs must have known, or perceived, that Mr Lee was gay, or associated with others who were gay. Surely the law is on shaky ground when it begins to perceive who people associate with?

The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." The reality is that the vast majority of people who support same-sex marriage are heterosexual.

The Office for National Statistics has found that 1.3% of the population is LGBT, and, according to the polls, anywhere from 30% to 50% of the population supports same-sex marriage, while, of course, some within the LGBT community oppose same-sex marriage. The company would not have made this cake for anyone, gay or straight.

As the atheist Brendan O'Neill has noted, there is a new social orthodoxy in relation to same-sex marriage, in which dissent will not be tolerated. We must be wary of what John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of prevailing opinion"."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/everyone-a-loser-in-gay-cake-row-31236899.html

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:03 AM

"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." "

No the judge didn't. Read the judgement.

It's complicated stuff. Life is like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:26 AM

Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up.
He would wouldn't he.

Is that anything like the baker denying that he discriminated?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:38 AM

Is the judgement available online?
Can you provide an alternative quote?
If not, why should I not believe the quote provided in the Belfast Telegraph?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:42 AM

No the judge didn't. Read the judgement.

You're forgetting that Keith can't - or at least doesn't - read. No need for him to. He gets his stuff directly from God, like pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:49 AM

Greg, you are as usual engaging in personal abuse instead of debate.
I hope you are deleted, and not the thread.

Perhaps you could follow up your nasty insults with a reasoned post expressing your views on this issue.

Should the law dictate to a business what goods and services they must provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:06 AM

No it shouldn't, Keith. The law is there to make sure that minorities are not discriminated against. That was the crux of this case, not to dictate what businesses should do. You disagree with the judgement. That's called hard luck. Judges know a lot more about the law then you do because they went to college and passed exams in it, Keith, unlike you. You're entitled to your opinion on the judgement but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are in a far weaker position to make a fair judgement than that judge. It's a pity that your pro-Christian beliefs won't let you see it.

By the way, slogans made in public such as "Muslims go home" or "Hang the blacks" are illegal. If you walked down the street carrying a banner saying "support gay marriage" you would be perfectly in order. If your banner said either of those two other things, you'd be arrested. Another what-if debunked.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:10 AM

Sorry for that last bit, Guest. I misread your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:11 AM

personal abuse instead of debate

There IS no debating you, Keith. Its impossible.

Also, there's no point in my becomming engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:13 AM

Is that anything like the baker denying that he discriminated?

Did the baker deny he discriminated against inscribing a slogan that went against his principles?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:15 AM

Ha Ha, it's been linked above three times Keith. Can't read; don't read; won't read ?

judgement

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:23 AM

This gets ridiculous - someone claiming to support gay marriage has done his best for a great length of time denigrating efforts to win support for gay marriage
Beam me up Scotty
Before you say it - yes you have Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:24 AM

Missed a bit OVER TWO THREADS!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:27 AM

I wish to address the issue that Keith keeps raising, asking us whether a third of Irish people are bigots because they voted no. The answer to that is that most of them are probably not. You are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you like without being labelled a bigot. You are a bigot only if your prejudiced views are used to try to disadvantage a section of the community, or individuals within it. It's my guess that the majority of people in Ireland don't have strong feelings either way (it's never exactly the hot topic wherever I hang out), but they were polarised into a simplistic yes/no by the nature of the referendum question. There are many shades of yes and many shades of no that could not be expressed by a cross in a box. There must have been thousands of people voting no who were thinking, well, it sounds like a bloody weird idea to me and I'm not voting for it, but as far as I'm concerned they can just get on with it if they're that way inclined. That is not bigotry. We just don't know, because they were not asked to expand on their voting decision, so you might as well stop asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:32 AM

You are a bigot only if your prejudiced views are used to try to disadvantage a section of the community

I don't think so Steve Shaw. I think bigotry is a state of mind, expressing it to the disadvantage of others is discrimination.

As I said in a longer, better qualified, post earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:44 AM

unconcerned Guest,
Ha Ha, it's been linked above three times Keith. Can't read; don't read; won't read

You were wrong.
Paragraph 42.
"I (Judge Brownlie) regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation."

That is shown to be a false premise.
Some gay people oppose gay marriage, and the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:49 AM

I was trying to be careful in that post to say bigot, not bigotry, though not careful enough, see below. Bigotry is indeed a state of mind, one in which you hold opinions based on prejudice. But to be a bigot you need to articulate those thoughts in a way that disadvantages particular minorities. If you start regarding people with prejudices who keep them to themselves as bigots, the word loses its usefulness. By that reckoning you could feasibly call almost anyone a bigot who has a cockeyed view of some aspect of life, due to a deficient education or the undue influence of parents or peers, which could mean we're probably all bigots, one way or another. That isn't much use. I think the term is best kept for people who aggressively promote their bigotry. How's about that? And I shouldn't have said in the last post "that is not bigotry" because it is, and I contradicted myself, but "they are not bigots" is what I should have said instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:05 AM

Context Keith, context. What is "the criterion" ? The Belfast Telegraph quote was inaccurate. More sloppy journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:20 AM

"Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"
You've claimed this several times Keith - do you have any evidence to show there to be a significant number - otherwise, as with many other of your statements, it is meaningless, bearing in mind that some black slaves were happy with their situation and extremely unhappy when slavery ended.
Th fact that "the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay" is a smokescreen - equally meaningless, unless you are claiming that a significant number of people actually don't support law change and the end to gay persecution - is that your claim?
1.5 percent of the British population are estimated to be gay and 10 percent of the U.S. - therefore there are bound to be far more non-gay supporters than there are gay.
Isthere no lengths you will not go to to denigrate the gay-rights movement - and you a supporter, and all that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:29 AM

Steve Shaw. I see your point but I think that the approach the law appears to take (on the basis of that judgement - I don't really know) of focusing on the 'discrimination' is better as it is probably easier to recognise. No need to get insde people minds.

It also allows the critical aspect of different things to be covered by the same legislation. I guess businesses who discriminate against disabled people are being penny-pinching rather than bigoted. Sexual orientation has sensual and emotional aspects. Many people clearly feel awkward and unhappy about orientations other than their own and may not be able to set those feelings aside and make the rational decision that it is unfair to treat those people differently. Otherwise political debates and referendums would not be needed.

The directors of the bakery may or may not be bigots but the what seems to matter to the law is that as a commerical concern they are not allowed to discriminate.

If they are not bigots then, as with the Savation Army folks mentioned earlier, I have some sympathy. If I was a sign writer there are plenty of legal slogans (religion, politics, evolution, global warning etc) that I would not want to write signs for. I hope I would simply be able to say that I didn't write client-supplied messages related to any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:36 AM

I like the "what ifs" the idiots are coming out with. Slogans such as "Muslims go home, blacks this, that and the other" are discriminatory slogans so no business could be asked to break the law in putting them on a cake. If a bakery run by a Muslim with similar views to the bakery in question refused and the circumstances similar, there is no reason to expect anything other than a similar outcome.

Nobody is getting at any flavour of superstition, but any and all forms of bigotry, regardless of whether they say Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Chewbacca or the noodly one told them to discriminate. Stop seeing this as Christian persecution, when it is protecting society from bigots.

The person wanting this cake asked for a perfectly reasonable slogan that does not discriminate.

The Keith's of this world don't know what discrimination is, or choose not to when they invoke their fairy tales at normal people.

I don't know why Keith thinks he knows better than the judge? After all, she is alive, eminent, judging in the last twenty years and all the judges agree with her 😹😹😹😹

Even.. Apparently 70% of the people agree with the bakers eh Keith? Any chance of proving that, or is that just in your head? 70% of criminals agree that beating people up when you burgle their homes reduces the chances of being caught. 70% of Christians think they are 70% of the country. 70% of WW1 soldiers reckon Haig was a cunt.

The possibilities are endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:52 AM

i like the word "cunt".

I'm sure some folks regard it as a 'bad' word that should be censored and summarily deleted.

Obviously I, and some others, don't.

Would I walk into a bakers and insist they make me a cake with "Cunt" iced on it ???

and then take them to court if they refuse ????

Well... probably not...

"Cunt Cakes" 😍

but it's another 'what if' which I freely donate to the thread Whatifers
to save them the effort of thinking up one more ludicrously tenuous example...😩

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:54 AM

Unconcerned,
"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." "
No the judge didn't.

Yes the judge did.
You were wrong.
Belfast Telegraph were right, including the context.

The Belfast Telegraph quote was inaccurate.

It was verbatim correct.
YOU were wrong.

Jim,
1.5 percent of the British population are estimated to be gay and 10 percent of the U.S. - therefore there are bound to be far more non-gay supporters than there are gay.

Obviously.
The judge was wrong to say that support for same sex marriage is indissociable from sexual orientation, because some gay people do not support it and the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay.

The judgement was based on a false premise.
It was wrong.

"Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"
You've claimed this several times Keith - do you have any evidence to show there to be a significant number - otherwise, as with many other of your statements, it is meaningless,

"The gay people against gay marriage"
By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News, Washington
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:58 AM

Gosh! Some gay people don't want to get married!

One or two apparently don't want any gay people to get married. That makes them bigots.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:00 PM

Musket,
Apparently 70% of the people agree with the bakers eh Keith? Any chance of proving that, or is that just in your head?

It is reported in the Belfast Telegraph article I quoted, and I have also seen it elsewhere if you want to challenge them too.

The majority of WW1 soldiers thought well of Haig.
Revered him even.
They turned out in their thousands to welcome him home after the war, and in tens of thousands at his funeral on a bitter February day.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:05 PM

"The majority of WW1 soldiers thought well of Haig.
Revered him even.
They turned out in their thousands to welcome him home after the war, and in tens of thousands at his funeral on a bitter February day."

Was Haig gay? If not what does he have to do with this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:06 PM

IIRC (not going to read back but it's there) the 'Muslims go home' what-if was a quote from a well known columnist in a well-known newspaper. If it was just someone on a minority interest web forum it wouldn't matter so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:08 PM

Got it! Its in one newspaper paper so it MUST be true.

But then again, is it an eminent paper, and is it alive, and do all other eminent papers agree with it? ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:10 PM

The judge did not say that Keith, it is an edited version of what she said and the changes are not indicated. Can you read ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:12 PM

The judge did say that.
It is quoted in paragraph 42 as you have been told.

Again,
Paragraph 42.
"I (Judge Brownlie) regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:13 PM

Sigh. If it was just someone on a minority interest web forum it wouldn't matter so much that it was nonesense.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith . Look at these closely.

"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." " (Belfast Telegraph)

"I regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation." (Court judgement)

Are they the same ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:20 PM

The other occassion was this:

The criterion as for the 2006 Regulations is "support for same sex marriage" which, in the context of the political debate ongoing in Northern Ireland at the time, is indissociable from the political opinion of those who support it. There is also an exact correspondence between the disadvantage imposed in supporting one and not the other.

Does that help ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:26 PM

""The gay people against gay marriage"
As I said - an insignificant number - many of which oppose marriage per se - nothing whatever to do with ending persecution and prejudice.
Feminists oppose marriage anyway because it goes against their principles.
You continue distort information to denigrate ending gay persecution
Why on earth do you continue to be in favour of Gay rights - you are clearly not, when you are prepared to put this much effort into denigrating their cause?
I really am glad I'm not a Christian
The cae is over and the judgement given Keith
You've already claimed that the judge didn't know what she was doing, so why quote her?
If she didn't know what she was talking about she didn't know what she was talking about - as far as your concerned - can't ave your cake and eat it!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:31 PM

""Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"

yeah.. ok.. you aroused my curiosity to read that BBC article ...

I think many who read that would discern that the main thrust is
regarding Gay people who oppose Marriage..

same as so many straight radicals and progressives
oppose the conservative concept and institution of 'marriage'...

[like me and the mrs did until we relented in our 40s
after a very long time of 'living in sin'
and married for the legal securities]

Keith - perhaps not so many gays actually oppose 'gay marriage'
as you believe is the proposition that BBC article supports.......?????

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:38 PM

Keith.... Can you read ?

Obviously, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:54 PM

[like me and the mrs did until we relented in our 40s
after a very long time of 'living in sin'
and married for the legal securities]


I can ditto that. Quick dash to a registry office after twenty two years. The only difference is it will be a lot easier to sort things, house etc, once I drop.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:13 PM

One of the strangest assertions which Keith keeps making is that Asher's regularly served gay customers without complaints.

Were all of the company's customers quizzed regarding their sexual orientation on entering the premises? If not, how did the staff of Asher's know?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:16 PM

yeah.. just the minimum cost for the registry office and licence..
a handful of female relatives for witnesses,
and 4 pints of stella immediately before the 'ceremony'..
...and quite a few more stellas afterwards.....

bollocks to the profiteering parasitic wedding industry...



Next on the medium to hopefully long term agenda..

how to get cremated with least fuss and as cheaply as possible...😎

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:31 PM

but it's another 'what if' which I freely donate to the thread Whatifers
to save them the effort of thinking up one more ludicrously tenuous example

British common law is based on precedent.
This judgement sets a precedent.
That makes it totally relevant to consider what other kinds of situations could be affected by this ruling.
That is what legalists do.
You and the others who drone on about "whatifery" are afraid to consider some of the hypothetical situations that could be adjudicated under this precedent.
Is that because they present too much of a challenge to your entrenched ideological positions?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:33 PM

"If not, how did the staff of Asher's know?"

Well they did have a gay on staff so that might be clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:38 PM

Legalists know how to read the judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:40 PM

no... not at all afraid..

It would actually be a very interesting exercise to consider such potential ramifications of precedent
under more rational and less prejudiced conditions...

..but certainly not in this particular loaded 'debate'...????


punkfolkrocker [A level law 1977 - passed despite playing guitar in a somewhat wayward punk rock band]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:41 PM

And legalists wouldn't rephrase its sentences when claiming to quote from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:42 PM

"That makes it totally relevant to consider what other kinds of situations could be affected by this ruling.
That is what legalists do."

No they don't. They consider cases that have actually arisen in the light of precedents. There are no bunches of lawyers sitting around tables today going through umpteen future what-if scenarios. They have far better things to do. More lucrative things to do as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:43 PM

They consider, in the light of precedents, cases that have already arisen. Ah, that's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:48 PM

"Cunt Cakes" 😍

Brings to mind Johnny Cradock's parting shot at the end of one of their cookery shows, "And may your doughnuts all turn out like Fanny's."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:53 PM

I suspect that legalists working for people who provide business insurance to bakeries (and signwriters etc) will be doing some what-ifing.

I think that I saw this thing about not taking on certain classes of work in something related to business or professional insurance. In amongst the exclusions about ionising radions etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:55 PM

radiations

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:57 PM

Legalist is a broad term that encompasses academic and philosophical legalism which is an approach to the analysis of legal questions characterized by abstract logical reasoning focused on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation, or case law.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:05 PM

"Analyst" - those who get really anal over every minute nit picking pedantic detail...😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:14 PM

Well Steve, I did throw in the word ....perhaps....,as I might not be accurate, but as it happens I googled. ...straw man....,and I found the meaning less restrictive than the definition you offered.   What you did, was set up an argument that could be easily knocked down , ie homosexuals suffering down the years.   That is not the argument that I opposed.   I am aware of that. My argument was that the denial of a sloganized cake, is not discrimination. It is a matter of conscience on the bakers part.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:21 PM

Keith . Look at these closely.

"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." " (Belfast Telegraph)

"I regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation." (Court judgement)

Are they the same ?

Yes.
The judge said exactly what she was reported as saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:34 PM

Are they the same ?

Yes.

See? Can't read and/or can't understand what he reads. Its hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:40 PM

Keith. If one removed from the text of the judgement what the judge actually said and replaced it with what the Belfast Telegraph said she said would the judgement still make sense ?

You could answer in the spirit of a comprehension test.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:12 PM

"Legalist is a broad term that encompasses academic and philosophical legalism which is an approach to the analysis of legal questions characterized by abstract logical reasoning focused on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation, or case law."

Jaysus, that was pretty bloody abstract.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:33 PM

Well shit!...tell the homosexuals, seeking 'marriage cakes' to order them from a Muslim baker.....IF a 'marriage cake' was really their top priority....then the judge could order the Muslims to forget their dogmas and bake the stupid cake!

GfS

P.S. My karma just ran over your dogma!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:23 PM

You're really not amusing, you know, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:11 PM

He's a bloody sight more amusing than you Greg.

and he makes a good point, something which you have utterly failed to do.

Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason.
Homosexual "marriage" is presently against the law in NI...can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:18 PM

All this about conscience.. Err.. What has conscience to do with it? You do as your employer is required to do under law or you are not employed. A person isn't selling cake, a corporate body is, and corporate bodies aren't members of any sect.

I had a service engineer who, once we got a rota going for "on call" said that as a Christian he couldn't work Sundays. I sacked him and the tribunal agreed with us that "on call" was an expectation and though informal at the time of his employment as opposed to rota, his intransigence to a rota was not reasonable.

Sometimes, the system works. In later years, on call in a different field meant that a Muslim colleague was happy to work Sundays on condition that he had time for Friday prayers, whilst a devout Christian colleague was happy to always be available on Fridays.

Reasonable.

I love Keith's assertion above. God /Clapton help us. were you really a teacher Keith? Do you feel at all ashamed of the standard you must have worked to? If you cannot grasp the subject in hand or the judgement it refers to, have the decency to know when you are out of your depth instead of embarrassing yourself. You give the likes of me all the ammunition we need when bemoaning the state of students we gave to deal with, and lecturing at a medical school, I'm supposed to be getting the cream!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:34 PM

Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason.

A disgustingly homophobic remark.

Homosexual "marriage" is presently against the law in NI...can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?

The cake was part of a campaign to get something made legal. In democracies you are allowed to campaign to get laws changed. You say "forced to promote something which is not legal" as though there was incitement or coercion to break the law. That is deliberate misrepresentation of the issue, as there was no such incitement. You post ill-judged and uninformed nonsense all the time, but this post is one of your worst, an absolute disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:39 PM

"can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?"
Yes they can if it's done in the spirit that it was done here
The Bakery made it quite clear that their reasons for turning down the order were homophobic i just as this statement it
"Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:26 PM

He's a bloody sight more amusing than you Greg. and he makes a good point, something which you have utterly failed to do.

Well, Pharoah, some time back, in response to a PM query of yours - and one in which you were fairly complimentary, bye the bye - I said something to the effect that the reason I was civil to you when others were not was that though I disagreed with you, I thought you were intelligent though wrong in your opinions, but not necessarily a bigot or "evil".

I herewith publicly retract that statement in its entirety. Guess you're just a fag-basher after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:02 PM

Fag-basher could just be a heavy smoker this end, Greg!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:15 PM

Crikey! Forgot about that...Poof/Pouff- basher then? Help me out here, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:36 PM

Oh quit being so bigoted toward Christians...buy the fucking cake from Muslims!...and sue them...I mean, equality is equality, isn't it???

...or only when it suits you....?

GfS