Have your cake, repeated.

motorguy

I bought some Ashers fairy cakes last night.

Very nice they are indeed.

Wouldnt have even heard of Ashers only for this whole kerfuffle.

waltsalt

I wouldn't have thought they'd make fairy cakes.

Ba-da-boom!

motorguy

waltsalt wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought they'd make fairy cakes.

Ba-da-boom!

LOL, yes, funny i did think the same thing....

dmxdave

waltsalt wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought they'd make fairy cakes.

Ba-da-boom!

No problem with fairy cakes.....what did you want printed on them?

saverbuyer

motorguy wrote: »

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.

So you still haven't read the actual judgment? Read it and come back to me when you understand the content.


Asher's lost. The have been found to have discriminated against a protected characteristic.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make vis-a-vis porno-cake, but I can assure you, the right to enjoy !!!!!!-cake isn't a protected one. End of.

saverbuyer

motorguy wrote: »

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?

Yep. Still haven't bothered reading the judgment.

motorguy

Yes I have and it doesn't make the judgement "right"


I think this judgement sets a very dangerous precident.

RikM

Well, it's a precedent, certainly. It would probably be dangerous for it not to have gone this way (cue loads of defence of discrimination along the lines of "but the Bible says"...).
The judgement seems clear and reasonable to me

What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.

So you don't accept equality? That's okay, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't act on that belief...

qwert_yuiop

If equality involves gay marriage, then you can be nailed for objecting to a privilege the state denies !!!!!exuals. It seems perverse (aye) to nail ashers for a supposed act of discrimination which the state itself would appear to be guilty of.

The bible has nothing to do with it.

RikM

If you read the judgement, they seem to be saying that the message in support of marriage equality was protected political speech, given that the subject is open to change through legislation. Nailed both ways: discrimination on the grounds of orientation or political beliefs