Have your cake, repeated.

motorguy

Old_Git wrote: »

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

They have also refused to bakes with profanities or offensive or rude images on them.

It could also be argued that the "Support Gay Marriage" campaign is a political campaign designed to change the law.

If a heterosexual had asked for the cake to be baked they would also have been refused.

Forcing their religious views on others would be trying to ensure that it was illegal to make the cake.

Even IF you accept its a religious viewpoint, noone would expect a muslim to bake a cake with a cartoon of Mohammed on it would they?

motorguy

guiriman wrote: »

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).

Ashers have refused to bake other cakes with profanities and nudity on them.

They would have refused to bake the cake no matter whether Gareth Lee had been gay or hetrosexual.

qwert_yuiop

Old_Git wrote: »

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

I must have missed that bit. I thought they just refused to bake a cake.

BatCat

It's not just Gareth Lee's word that he was a previous customer. Asher's also have said they served him before and they'd serve him again.

It's really a simple judgement.
Asher's said they would ice anything on a cake.
Gareth Lee asked them to ice a message about supporting Gay Marriage.
They took the order.
Then Asher's chose to cancel it because they didn't like the message.

It's important to note that Asher's is a MONEY MAKING business. They are not a public service, or a church. They exist to provide a service.

They decided not to offer their cake icing service because they didn't like a message which didn't involve hate speech, and by doing so they targeted a protected characteristic.

You don't have to agree with something you ice on a cake.
You just have to provide a service.
I think this judgement was actually valuable. The LGBT community should have equal access to service in NI.

saverbuyer

motorguy wrote: »

They would have refused to bake the cake no matter whether Gareth Lee had been gay or hetrosexual.

I'm not being funny here, but did you read the judgment? I hear this argument being throw about a lot.


Asher's offered a service whereby they would bake a cake with any design. The evidence shows that they knew Lee was gay and this probably played a part in refusing service. They refused to bake a cake that met there terms of service.

qwert_yuiop

Well, all well and good, but since there is no gay marriage (yet), and they apparently disagree with the sentiment, how can the state protect something which doesn't exist?So the judgement proved you can be forced to provide something you object to.

We can now expect similar cases where "may I cite the judgement of the equality commission on provision of a cake" is heard, and equally intrusive findings are made.

saverbuyer

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Well, all well and good, but since there is no gay marriage (yet), and they apparently disagree with the sentiment, how can the state protect something which doesn't exist?So the judgement proved you can be forced to provide something you object to.

We can now expect similar cases where "may I cite the judgement of the equality commission on provision of a cake" is heard, and equally intrusive findings are made.

They weren't protecting the concept of gay marriage , they were protecting an individual against direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.


This is discrimination against an actual person.

motorguy

saverbuyer wrote: »

I'm not being funny here, but did you read the judgment? I hear this argument being throw about a lot.


Asher's offered a service whereby they would bake a cake with any design. The evidence shows that they knew Lee was gay and this probably played a part in refusing service. They refused to bake a cake that met there terms of service.

They have refused to make other cakes with profanities and / or pornographic images on them.

They would have not baked the cake no matter who requested it. End of.

motorguy

BatCat wrote: »

It's not just Gareth Lee's word that he was a previous customer. Asher's also have said they served him before and they'd serve him again.

Exactly - hence in that they didnt refuse to serve him previously because he was gay, they didnt not make the cake because he was gay, it was because of the message on it.

motorguy

BatCat wrote: »

The LGBT community should have equal access to service in NI.

Are we now saying that someone in the LBGT community "feeling offended" overrides peoples religious rights?

Should a muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with a cartoon depiction of Mohammed on it?