Have your cake, repeated.

motorguy

Tansy_1980 wrote: »

Yup - Ashers is simply the most prominent cake shop in Belfast City Centre and an obvious place to go for cake decorating, particularly if the chap was responding to a leaflet. Which presumably did not state "we are a Christian business". I had no idea at all that the business was owned by Christians and had been in several times before this all kicked off cause it was one of the few places close to my city centre workplace that you can buy reasonably priced cupcakes that also taste nice...

I've no doubt they knew exactly what they were doing and lets be honest, I am sure local people who know the owners know their religious background.


Have a quick google of "this chap" Gareth Lee and see if you really think hes as "innocent" to just happening to ask for a controversial cake message from a local shop.

motorguy

And lets not forget, they didn't say "we're not making this cake for you because you're gay", it was because of the message on it, which they believed conflicted with their religious beliefs.


It will be interesting to see if Muslim printers are made to print cartoons about Mohammed on the back of this....

motorguy

joefizz wrote: »

I am confused by this whole 'Christian' thing.
Its not a 'Christian' thing but a few peoples interpretation of what being a Christian means.
Being born a Christian myself, my view is that Jesus would have baked them the cake, gave it to them for free, invited himself to the party, took the mic for a bit and gave everyone a bit of a speech that probably 10% would remember and 5% would probably follow him on Facebook and Instagram and say what a great lad (or lass) he was and that we should all follow him....

...I wonder how many paramilitary themed cakes they have printed down the years without any objection?

Technically, you weren't "born" a Christian, although you may have been born into a Christian home.

motorguy

saverbuyer wrote: »

Actually not really. They would have to provide a reason for refusing provide a service they advertise. If the reason for refusal contravenes a protected right, it wouldn't be a defense.

You can't refuse to bake a cake with a pro !!!!!exual marriage message but accept an order for a heterosexual one.


I suppose they could just lie and say the icing machine is broken. But that wouldn't be very Christian.

They ddnt refuse to make it because he was gay though, did they?


They refused because of the message on it.


I would have thought many hetrosexuals support the right to gay marriage, and if they had asked for the same cake, they too would have been refused.


Surely this is what gay activists want - to be treated as hetrosexuals - which they were.

RikM

Yes, the message. So they refused to do it because of a message. It was argued that they wouldn't (for example) have refused to make a cake with a message in support of traditional marriage, which makes their position clearly in breach of the law... Open and shut case.

qwert_yuiop

RikM wrote: »

Yes, the message. So they refused to do it because of a message. It was argued that they wouldn't (for example) have refused to make a cake with a message in support of traditional marriage, which makes their position clearly in breach of the law... Open and shut case.

Still a load of nonsense, where the law has demonstrated itself to be an !!!.

qwert_yuiop

Eeee it's political correctness gone mad, I tell you - they censor the word !!! where in that well known cliche, the word !!! clearly is a synonym of donkey. I think. No jokes please - they'll be censored.

Heisenbug

This wasn't about being offended or peoples right to not be offended and it wasn't about approving of the message either. Nor is this anything to do with free speech as the Ashers family have been able to make their views very clear over the media.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ashers were chosen on purpose but they also chose to fight and both sides are pawns in a larger battle.

There can be no such thing as a Christian, Protestant, Jewish or Atheist Bakery in the eyes of the law. The owners may be religious and they can choose in advance what they wish to sell but the business itself is not religious. If this was flipped to employment law would they be guilty if they chose not to employ a gay person?

guiriman

RikM wrote: »

Yes, the message. So they refused to do it because of a message. It was argued that they wouldn't (for example) have refused to make a cake with a message in support of traditional marriage, which makes their position clearly in breach of the law... Open and shut case.

Actually the ruling was that they directly discriminated against Gareth Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court did not accept that it was purely the message they objected to. So if Gareth Lee asked for a message in support of traditional marriage they would have made it (according to Asher's) or they would have not (according to the court's view).

Old_Git

Ashers chose to force their religious views on others by refusing to bake the cake .