Have your cake, repeated.

saverbuyer

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Like gay marriage? Which is not protected, because it doesn’t exist, the state having failed to provide it. Some incongruity there, surely?

The protected characteristic isn't gay marriage. The judgement states that ashers were aware Lee was gay. They discriminated against him. It's simple really. Would ashers refuse to make a cake supporting straight marriage. The answer is no. So they shouldn't refuse to bake one support if gay marriage.

The judgement was a sensible one. If it had of gone Ashers way, we could have been left with the situation where businesses can choose which services they provide the gay community based on religious belief. "No you can't stay in this hotel because you're gay".

qwert_yuiop

saverbuyer wrote: »

The protected characteristic isn't gay marriage. The judgement states that ashers were aware Lee was gay. They discriminated against him. It's simple really. Would ashers refuse to make a cake supporting straight marriage. The answer is no. So they shouldn't refuse to bake one support if gay marriage.

The judgement was a sensible one. If it had of gone Ashers way, we could have been left with the situation where businesses can choose which services they provide the gay community based on religious belief. "No you can't stay in this hotel because you're gay".

No. Very different. That is akin to being denied a cake because you are gay. It was the slogan they objected to. The judgement is perverse, an attempt to control and regulate opinion and belief.

qwert_yuiop

donnac2558 wrote: »

I was not slagging off any religion just pointing the Discworld books. Terry Pratchett is the best selling writer in the UK for many years. Started writing the Discworld back in the 80s. He was not in any way a stupid man. Knew exactly where the idea came from originally.

Calling someone a d+i+c+k is not particularly by any standard foul-mouthed. In fact, others standing beside the moron with the buns agreed with the person who told them they were being a !!!!! You turn up at a gay pride parade and start trying to stir it up is more anti-social. An event which has been passed by the parades commission and not forcing you to attend. The said man must have gone and bought the packet of pastry with the intent to look like an idiot.

So some people from a highly self selected group objected? Hardly a surprise.
I!!!8217;d say calling someone a !!!! is a a lot more offensive than refusing to provide a slogan on said cake. Seems mse forum thinks !!!! is unacceptable.

RikM

Funnily enough, I don't think I know any Hindus who would assert a flat or Diskvworld view of the world... Maybe some branches of the local religions could learn a thing or two from them about when to modify beliefs...?

Milko

Who gives a flying f...

qwert_yuiop

Milko wrote: »

Who gives a flying f...

You, clearly, since you felt it was worth commenting.

motorguy

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

No. Very different. That is akin to being denied a cake because you are gay. It was the slogan they objected to. The judgement is perverse, an attempt to control and regulate opinion and belief.

Agreed. Their issue was that they dont agree with, support or condone gay marriage.

It was a very precise request designed to generate the response it did. But of course, the requestor was "offended".

motorguy

RikM wrote: »

Because the law says their personal delusions about what imaginary beings say about sexual orientation (or race, or gender) may not be used as an excuse to deny service? It doesn't really matter what the bigotry is based on.

They dont agree with or support gay marriage. Thats a perfectly reasonable stance. Its not the fact he was gay that they denied service, it was the message.

I'm absolutely sure they've served gay people before and made cakes for them - so clearly it wasnt denied based on sexual orientation?

Hes a gay activist. He wasnt "offended". He did it deliberately to provoke the reaction he got.

motorguy

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Like gay marriage? Which is not protected, because it doesn’t exist, the state having failed to provide it. Some incongruity there, surely?

And we have the nail hit on the head :T

motorguy

Milko wrote: »

Who gives a flying f...

I do. £350,000 of our money wasted on this nonsense.