Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 25th Oct 16, 8:29 AM
    • 2,490Posts
    • 1,561Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Have your cake, repeated.
    • #1
    • 25th Oct 16, 8:29 AM
    Have your cake, repeated. 25th Oct 16 at 8:29 AM
    Is there not a better cause for the equalities commission to spend public funds on than forcing a baker to bake a cake with a slogan he doesn't approve of?
Page 8
    • donnac2558
    • By donnac2558 3rd May 18, 12:15 PM
    • 2,562 Posts
    • 2,176 Thanks
    donnac2558
    I hope she was nailed for her foul mouthed antisocial offensive and insulting behaviour, which you for some reason find laudable.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop

    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.
    • saverbuyer
    • By saverbuyer 3rd May 18, 12:19 PM
    • 2,485 Posts
    • 1,425 Thanks
    saverbuyer
    Like gay marriage? Which is not protected, because it doesn’t exist, the state having failed to provide it. Some incongruity there, surely?
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop
    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
    • By qwert yuiop 3rd May 18, 12:57 PM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    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".
    Originally posted by saverbuyer
    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.
    Last edited by qwert yuiop; 03-05-2018 at 1:20 PM.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 3rd May 18, 12:59 PM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    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.
    Originally posted by donnac2558
    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.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • RikM
    • By RikM 3rd May 18, 3:02 PM
    • 645 Posts
    • 363 Thanks
    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
    • By Milko 3rd May 18, 3:52 PM
    • 622 Posts
    • 366 Thanks
    Milko
    Who gives a flying f...
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 3rd May 18, 4:11 PM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Who gives a flying f...
    Originally posted by Milko
    You, clearly, since you felt it was worth commenting.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 4th May 18, 11:29 AM
    • 17,604 Posts
    • 10,672 Thanks
    motorguy
    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.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop
    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
    • By motorguy 4th May 18, 11:34 AM
    • 17,604 Posts
    • 10,672 Thanks
    motorguy
    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.
    Originally posted by RikM
    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
    • By motorguy 4th May 18, 11:39 AM
    • 17,604 Posts
    • 10,672 Thanks
    motorguy
    Like gay marriage? Which is not protected, because it doesn’t exist, the state having failed to provide it. Some incongruity there, surely?
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop
    And we have the nail hit on the head
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 4th May 18, 11:41 AM
    • 17,604 Posts
    • 10,672 Thanks
    motorguy
    Who gives a flying f...
    Originally posted by Milko
    I do. £350,000 of our money wasted on this nonsense.
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 10th Oct 18, 10:14 AM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Well, it seems not everyone felt gareth’s pain.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • Tammykitty
    • By Tammykitty 10th Oct 18, 11:08 AM
    • 616 Posts
    • 1,251 Thanks
    Tammykitty
    Well, it seems not everyone felt gareth’s pain.
    Originally posted by qwert yuiop

    Well done supreme court!


    Delighted for Ashers - I didn't like the repercussions of this case.


    The court has seen sense that it was the slogan they were refusing, not the customer - the order would have been refused whoever ordered it - gay or straight.


    I wonder what the situation would have been if they refused to make a cake for a civil partnership - (even if ordered by a straight person - parents of the couple etc) - I suspect that would be discrimination.
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 10th Oct 18, 12:07 PM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop


    I wonder what the situation would have been if they refused to make a cake for a civil partnership - (even if ordered by a straight person - parents of the couple etc) - I suspect that would be discrimination.
    Originally posted by Tammykitty
    Well, we’ll see what happens when that happens. Groan.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • guiriman
    • By guiriman 10th Oct 18, 12:43 PM
    • 404 Posts
    • 225 Thanks
    guiriman
    Is it done now or can they go to a higher (European?) court? Just wondering how much more money the Equality Commission can waste beyond the £250k already spent
    • qwert yuiop
    • By qwert yuiop 10th Oct 18, 1:12 PM
    • 2,490 Posts
    • 1,561 Thanks
    qwert yuiop
    Considering what’s been wasted on firewood, whatever gets wasted will probably not be noticed.

    I see the first to complain about squandering of public funds is everyone’s least favourite hypocrite, corner boy paisley. Perhaps he could donate some money saved from not having to pay for his holidays. The money he took to provide support for a regime that oppresses Christians.
    “What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 10th Oct 18, 2:13 PM
    • 17,604 Posts
    • 10,672 Thanks
    motorguy
    Well done supreme court!


    Delighted for Ashers - I didn't like the repercussions of this case.


    The court has seen sense that it was the slogan they were refusing, not the customer - the order would have been refused whoever ordered it - gay or straight.


    I wonder what the situation would have been if they refused to make a cake for a civil partnership - (even if ordered by a straight person - parents of the couple etc) - I suspect that would be discrimination.
    Originally posted by Tammykitty
    Good to see common sense has prevailed.
    "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
    • Suplex Backbreaker
    • By Suplex Backbreaker 10th Oct 18, 2:19 PM
    • 105 Posts
    • 81 Thanks
    Suplex Backbreaker
    Well done supreme court!


    Delighted for Ashers - I didn't like the repercussions of this case.


    The court has seen sense that it was the slogan they were refusing, not the customer - the order would have been refused whoever ordered it - gay or straight.


    I wonder what the situation would have been if they refused to make a cake for a civil partnership - (even if ordered by a straight person - parents of the couple etc) - I suspect that would be discrimination.
    Originally posted by Tammykitty
    I can't see how that would be discrimination - against whom and on what grounds?

    As the supreme court has rightly decided, discrimination law is there to protect individuals from being disadvantaged not ideals/beliefs from being disagreed with.


    Quite why the publicly funded 'Equality Commission' decided to throw taxpayer provided money and resources into trying to help an 'activist' score a political point is something that needs to be answered. If their chief commissioner Dr Michael Wardlow can't give a satisfactory answer he should consider resigning.

    This also shows how lower courts are swayed in their legal decisions by media/social mores, which is quite concerning too.
    • Tammykitty
    • By Tammykitty 10th Oct 18, 2:26 PM
    • 616 Posts
    • 1,251 Thanks
    Tammykitty
    I can't see how that would be discrimination - against whom and on what grounds?

    As the supreme court has rightly decided, discrimination law is there to protect individuals from being disadvantaged not ideals/beliefs from being disagreed with.


    Quite why the publicly funded 'Equality Commission' decided to throw taxpayer provided money and resources into trying to help an 'activist' score a political point is something that needs to be answered. If their chief commissioner Dr Michael Wardlow can't give a satisfactory answer he should consider resigning.

    This also shows how lower courts are swayed in their legal decisions by media/social mores, which is quite concerning too.
    Originally posted by Suplex Backbreaker

    The average person in the street was able to see it wasn't discrimination - so I think whoever provided the legal advice to the equality commission has a lot to answer for!


    They should be held responsible for wasting our money
    • jetboy
    • By jetboy 13th Oct 18, 7:37 PM
    • 516 Posts
    • 158 Thanks
    jetboy
    The legal profession thrive on this sort of nonsense. They will take your money until you run out of it. The current climate where everybody ‘takes offence’ at just about everything is perfect for them. I wonder how many people could’ve been treated or homeless given accommodation for the price of this? As for the equalities commission- they should give themselves a good shake. I have some experience in how difficult it is to get them to buy into an issue and yet this is what they fund. World gone utterly mad.
    Timmay!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,969Posts Today

7,338Users online

Martin's Twitter