Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[TooMany2cvs]

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

What's sauce for the goose...

[Dindoit]

SpeckledJim said:

sidicks said:

SpeckledJim said:

Are there any religions of any size in the UK that are not in some way demonstrably homophobic?

I'll give you the Green Party. Any others?

Plenty of ‘all inclusive’ Churches.

Of what denomination? A denomination that employs women and 'out' men at the highest levels?

How do they square the circle with the bible?

Church of England big enough for you? There are openly gay and even same sex married priests.

[Murph7355]

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

How does that square with contract law?

Didn't the cake bakers refuse the contract upfront?

The photographers appear to have accepted the contract.

If the people the photographs were for end up losing out as a result (e.g. If the photographs were for Homophobic Bakers Monthly and they now miss the deadline and a financial award) wouldn't the photo agency be liable?

Correct decision on the bakers front no matter what one's views are on their views. Business owners need to be able to refuse work. They could have been smarter about how they did it, but it's their business. The market will now see if their business has legs.

[Thorodin]

TooMany2cvs said:

While I think this is the correct verdict in this case, simply because of the wider ability to refuse business from objectionable customers - if the bakers had lost, the precedent would mean a pub would be unable to refuse to host a BNP or EDL meeting - the owners of the bakery are undoubtedly homophobes who try to hide behind their extremist interpretation of their religion.

I regret to have to point out that you have missed the relevant point about the customers (losers) in this case. The objection was not to 'objectionable customers' but to the instructions to further their attempts to publicise a quasi-political cause. There has been no finding by the Supreme Court concerning objectionable customers. Not a lawyer, but in my business (now retired) I declined on two occasions to serve objectionable customers but not for any proscribed reasons.


Your assertion about their allegedly undoubtedly homophobic extremist interpretation of anything is not borne out by the Supreme Court yet you agree the verdict was correct? Confusing.

[JuniorD]

Murph7355 said:

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

How does that square with contract law?

Didn't the cake bakers refuse the contract upfront?

The photographers appear to have accepted the contract.

If the people the photographs were for end up losing out as a result (e.g. If the photographs were for Homophobic Bakers Monthly and they now miss the deadline and a financial award) wouldn't the photo agency be liable?

Correct decision on the bakers front no matter what one's views are on their views. Business owners need to be able to refuse work. They could have been smarter about how they did it, but it's their business. The market will now see if their business has legs.

I don't know how the photo agency's behaviour squares with contract law, but by refusing to their conclude their service to the Christian Institute certainly looks like a case of religious discrimination. At least I hope it is, and I hope they get sued for it.

[gooner1]

JuniorD said:

Murph7355 said:

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

How does that square with contract law?

Didn't the cake bakers refuse the contract upfront?

The photographers appear to have accepted the contract.

If the people the photographs were for end up losing out as a result (e.g. If the photographs were for Homophobic Bakers Monthly and they now miss the deadline and a financial award) wouldn't the photo agency be liable?

Correct decision on the bakers front no matter what one's views are on their views. Business owners need to be able to refuse work. They could have been smarter about how they did it, but it's their business. The market will now see if their business has legs.

I don't know how the photo agency's behaviour squares with contract law, but by refusing to their conclude their service to the Christian Institute certainly looks like a case of religious discrimination. At least I hope it is, and I hope they get sued for it.

Perhaps they'll just turn the other cheek, wich is maybe the route Adam and Steve should have chosen.

[gooner1]

JuniorD said:

Murph7355 said:

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

How does that square with contract law?

Didn't the cake bakers refuse the contract upfront?

The photographers appear to have accepted the contract.

If the people the photographs were for end up losing out as a result (e.g. If the photographs were for Homophobic Bakers Monthly and they now miss the deadline and a financial award) wouldn't the photo agency be liable?

Correct decision on the bakers front no matter what one's views are on their views. Business owners need to be able to refuse work. They could have been smarter about how they did it, but it's their business. The market will now see if their business has legs.

I don't know how the photo agency's behaviour squares with contract law, but by refusing to their conclude their service to the Christian Institute certainly looks like a case of religious discrimination. At least I hope it is, and I hope they get sued for it.

Perhaps they'll just turn the other cheek, wich is maybe the route Adam and Steve should have chosen.

[williamp]

Also, withholding images. Keeping personal data? Surely theyd need go be destroyed?

[JuniorD]

gooner1 said:

JuniorD said:

Murph7355 said:

JuniorD said:

The smart arses are coming out already.

A photography booking agency assigned to take photos of the Ashers people discovers that the client is the lobby group Christian Institute, who funded the Ashers legal battle. So being the misguided smart arses that they are, the photo booking agency have withheld the images and issued a refund.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-i...

How does that square with contract law?

Didn't the cake bakers refuse the contract upfront?

The photographers appear to have accepted the contract.

If the people the photographs were for end up losing out as a result (e.g. If the photographs were for Homophobic Bakers Monthly and they now miss the deadline and a financial award) wouldn't the photo agency be liable?

Correct decision on the bakers front no matter what one's views are on their views. Business owners need to be able to refuse work. They could have been smarter about how they did it, but it's their business. The market will now see if their business has legs.

I don't know how the photo agency's behaviour squares with contract law, but by refusing to their conclude their service to the Christian Institute certainly looks like a case of religious discrimination. At least I hope it is, and I hope they get sued for it.

Perhaps they'll just turn the other cheek, wich is maybe the route Adam and Steve should have chosen.

Turn their cheeks and spread their love?

Or is that spread their cheeks and love their turn?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Thorodin said:

Your assertion about their allegedly undoubtedly homophobic extremist interpretation of anything is not borne out by the Supreme Court yet you agree the verdict was correct? Confusing.

Did the supreme court comment on their personal views on homosexuality. It's really not relevant. When I go into a shop, I don't care if the owners like or hate me. Just so long as they treat me like they treat everyone else.

The only reason I raised the point of them being homophobic was in reply to those saying there was no evidence of that. When there's loads.

[TooMany2cvs]

Dindoit said:

Church of England big enough for you? There are openly gay and even same sex married priests.

Now try booking a same-sex wedding in a CoE church. Oh, hold on. It's the one religious denomination where there's no discretion given as to whether to offer them or not - it's actually illegal.

Oh, and the openly gay clergy? They have to swear blind that they're not actually sexually active. Straight priests don't have to.

Then there's all the shenanigans in the Anglican synod over whether even that half-arsed cop-out is utterly beyond the pale or not.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thorodin said:

Your assertion about their allegedly undoubtedly homophobic extremist interpretation of anything is not borne out by the Supreme Court yet you agree the verdict was correct? Confusing.

Did the supreme court comment on their personal views on homosexuality. It's really not relevant. When I go into a shop, I don't care if the owners like or hate me. Just so long as they treat me like they treat everyone else.

The only reason I raised the point of them being homophobic was in reply to those saying there was no evidence of that. When there's loads.

They wouldn't have printed the slogan for anyone, they were treated equally.

But you know this already...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thorodin said:

Your assertion about their allegedly undoubtedly homophobic extremist interpretation of anything is not borne out by the Supreme Court yet you agree the verdict was correct? Confusing.

Did the supreme court comment on their personal views on homosexuality. It's really not relevant. When I go into a shop, I don't care if the owners like or hate me. Just so long as they treat me like they treat everyone else.

The only reason I raised the point of them being homophobic was in reply to those saying there was no evidence of that. When there's loads.

They wouldn't have printed the slogan for anyone, they were treated equally.

But you know this already...

That wasn't the point I was addressing in my post. Are you thick or what?

[Thorodin]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That wasn't the point I was addressing in my post. Are you thick or what?

It's not WW that's confused, or confusing. Neither is he (or she) insulting anybody. You lose on both counts I'm afraid. Ad hominem attacks add nothing.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Thorodin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That wasn't the point I was addressing in my post. Are you thick or what?

It's not WW that's confused, or confusing. Neither is he (or she) insulting anybody. You lose on both counts I'm afraid. Ad hominem attacks add nothing.

The discussion has moved on without you. We all know how the judgement went, and why. We're now discussing if the owners are homophobic, and indeed, does it matter if they are.

I say yes they are, and no, it doesn't matter. Other opinions are available.

[XCP]

Religious people often seem to have an unhealthy obsession with what other people get up to in the bedroom.

This case seems to be a classic example.

[gooner1]

XCP said:

Religious people often seem to have an unhealthy obsession with what other people get up to in the bedroom.

This case seems to be a classic example.

Very true.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've found Jehovah's Witnesses hiding in our wardrobe
and under the bed.

[Eric Mc]

gooner1 said:

Very true.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've found Jehovah's Witnesses hiding in our wardrobe
and under the bed.

Used to be bank managers.

[hutchst]

super7 said:

There are a number of groups in the world with chip's on their shoulders so big that they believe they have a given right to impose their views on everyone else, and that everyone else has too accept it, regardless.

They're called liberals.

[selym]

hutchst said:

super7 said:

There are a number of groups in the world with chip's on their shoulders so big that they believe they have a given right to impose their views on everyone else, and that everyone else has too accept it, regardless.

They're called liberals.

Or PHers.