Have your cake, repeated.

qwert_yuiop

Overall, who do you think has benefitted from all this, if anyone? (Apart from the lawyers) The complainant has made himself look like a foot stamping over sensitive caricature. The MacArthur family have got a fair bit of advertising, which I'd say on balance has been quite useful, particularly since they seem nice and decent in their interviews, and Amy's quite pretty. Probably be a bit of boost to business there.

qwert_yuiop

saverbuyer wrote: »

No, you can object to gay marriage all you want. You're simply not allowed to provide a service that only reflects your own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.

So that's a No then. You've read 1984?

qwert_yuiop

motorguy wrote: »

But then its hardly the first time it has happened here - all those republicans who have to travel miles from their homes to be offended by orange marches...

The building I'm working in today was to be extended a few years ago. When they applied for planning permission, some bloke who lived 9 miles away objected to the disruption to the view. Beat that.

saverbuyer

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

So that's a No then. You've read 1984?

I have but I'm clearly missing the link. Thoughtcrime?

Tansy_1980

I know I shouldn't get involved, but...

As one poster pointed out, this has provided much needed clarification on the law and should make the duty to comply with equality legislation much clearer. Hopefully, some sort of easy-read guidance from the Equality Commission will flow from this and this will aid consumers and business owners in delivering on their statutory responsibilities. The judgment was critical of the ECNI's failure to provide guidance to Ashers on their obligations, hopefully the situation will now improve for both sides of this argument.

As another poster pointed out, discrimination can only be unlawful if the person is discriminated against on certain protected grounds. It is not possible to discriminate against someone who is, for example, in receipt of benefits or employed as a soldier, as these are not protected grounda. You could, however, be guilty of indirect discrimination if one of your policies, while not directly discriminatory against a protected group, has the indirect effect of discriminating against them. For example, you could be guilty of indirect discrimination if you refused service to members of the Armed Forces, if it could be statistically shown that these people are more likely to be male or female or of a particular race or ethnicity.

I know little about the motivation behind choosing Ashers to provide this cake, but it would have been the first place I would have enquired about a cake as someone working in the city centre, particularly if it was needed urgently. There is a serious lack of these types of bakeries in the city centre and Ashers has a pretty prominent storefront. I had no idea, until this case, that Ashers was an organisation with a Christian ethos. There is certainly no mention of it on their products or in their store. Nor do they seem to publicise any links to charities or social enterprises which play out this Christian ethos by giving back to the community. Generally, these types of organisations tend to promote their ethos by way of charitable works (such as Belfast Central Mission's various social enterprises) rather than by refusing service to other people. I understand their argument, but feel that it is difficult to reconcile a truly Christian with the businesss of making money. If you, as an individual, have strong views about something, these should be kept separate from you as a service provider.

Finally, discrimination is sometimes lawful if the person who has the discriminatory policy can provide reasonable justification. Blanket refusals of service will rarely be seen as justifiable.

qwert_yuiop

saverbuyer wrote: »

I have but I'm clearly missing the link. Thoughtcrime?

Yes, and from his other classic, sort of, some people's opinions are more equal than others.

Zola.

Set up from the start, what a load of boring crap.

Activist guy clearly knew what he was doing, should have !!!!ed off somewhere else.

And the bakery guy should have just made the cake and shut up

All them are stubborn, boring !!!!!!, ultimately.

No one benefits from this, it creates/deepens a divide between hard liners and some in the LBGT community, and if anyone thinks Ashers will suffer they are deluded. The church paid for Asher's court case, and you can be sure all the local churches and people attending those churches will be buying their wee buns to support them.

qwert_yuiop

Zola. wrote: »

Set up from the start, what a load of boring crap.

Activist guy clearly knew what he was doing, should have !!!!ed off somewhere else.

And the bakery guy should have just made the cake and shut up

All them are stubborn, boring arseholesy t, ultimately.

No one benefits from this, it creates/deepens a divide between hard liners and some in the LBGT community, and if anyone thinks Ashers will suffer they are deluded. The church paid for Asher's court case, and you can be sure all the local churches and people attending those churches will be buying their wee buns to support them.

I'd say the level of intolerance displayed by the activist will not make him too many friends. Asher's, as you say, will likely demonstrate that it's possible to have your cake and eat it. Get your gnashers into Asher's, or similar.

By the way, I'd say gay marriage is coming, whether the dup like it or not. There's a similar row going on in Australia these days, which looks like it'll end the same way.

Surely there's some get out clause for religious belief in these cases? Otherwise, for instance, the Catholic Church would be forced to allow women to be priests. Are there no test cases there? Also, a church can refuse to celebrate a !!!!!exual marriage , so why not a baker? We should be told.

qwert_yuiop

And for those who don't read exclamation marks, that's homo, all right?

saverbuyer

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

I'd say the level of intolerance displayed by the activist will not make him too many friends. Asher's, as you say, will likely demonstrate that it's possible to have your cake and eat it. Get your gnashers into Asher's, or similar.

By the way, I'd say gay marriage is coming, whether the dup like it or not. There's a similar row going on in Australia these days, which looks like it'll end the same way.

Surely there's some get out clause for religious belief in these cases? Otherwise, for instance, the Catholic Church would be forced to allow women to be priests. Are there no test cases there? Also, a church can refuse to celebrate a !!!!!exual marriage , so why not a baker? We should be told.

Religious organization usually have specific opt out clause or exemption from gender discrimination. The same sex marriage act has the quadruple lock for instance. The equality act also has an exemption for priests.