Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[anonymous-user]

The bigger picture is that we don't want a society where those who provide goods and services pick and choose whom they want to serve based upon sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion etc.

[RobinOakapple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

Not that I've spoken to. Most people think it's blatant discrimination based on crackpot religious nonsense and are glad they lost.

Then the people you've spoken to are evidently not an average cross section of society. Perhaps the circle you move in is too restricted, thus colouring your views.

[SpeckledJim]

RobinOakapple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

Not that I've spoken to. Most people think it's blatant discrimination based on crackpot religious nonsense and are glad they lost.

Then the people you've spoken to are evidently not an average cross section of society. Perhaps the circle you move in is too restricted, thus colouring your views.

I don't think any of us can claim to speak for most of us.

[RobinOakapple]

SpeckledJim said:

RobinOakapple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

Not that I've spoken to. Most people think it's blatant discrimination based on crackpot religious nonsense and are glad they lost.

Then the people you've spoken to are evidently not an average cross section of society. Perhaps the circle you move in is too restricted, thus colouring your views.

I don't think any of us can claim to speak for most of us.

Can't speak for Twig, but I am not making that claim. I'm simply stating what I've learned about the views of the people that I have spoken to.

[Einion Yrth]

SpeckledJim said:

RobinOakapple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

Not that I've spoken to. Most people think it's blatant discrimination based on crackpot religious nonsense and are glad they lost.

Then the people you've spoken to are evidently not an average cross section of society. Perhaps the circle you move in is too restricted, thus colouring your views.

I don't think any of us can claim to speak for most of us.

Apparently some feel they can...

La Liga said:

The bigger picture is that we don't want a society where those who provide goods and services pick and choose whom they want to serve based upon sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion etc.

[SpeckledJim]

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

And why 'the blacks' can't just stay in another hotel, and, and, and...

The difficulty or otherwise in getting a 'pro-gay' cake decorated is a complete red herring.

It was suspected by queerspace that the attitude of the bakers was illegally discriminatory, so they put it to the test. They have been proved correct, and so the ends have justified the means.

[Eric Mc]

Ah yes - that old saw.

Used by terrorists worldwide.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?

It is not, Eric. The courts have explained why they feel it isn't and they are the arbiters, not you.

I'm not trying to be an arbiter. I'm just expressing my view. Or is that illegal now as well?

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

[RobinOakapple]

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?

It is not, Eric. The courts have explained why they feel it isn't and they are the arbiters, not you.

I'm not trying to be an arbiter. I'm just expressing my view. Or is that illegal now as well?

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

Perhaps if the bakers were Muslims rather than Christians they wouldn't have faced prosecution.

[Eric Mc]

Derek Smith said:

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

It seems the law doesn't penalise you on what you say or do - but on WHO you say or do it to.

[Thorodin]

Derek Smith said:

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

"However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply."


Make your mind up Derek! Your first sentence (immed. above) obliquely refers to Muslims whose trump card is religion. Your second to Christians (incidentally the official State religion) who also are a religion! A somewhat obvious similarity!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

Ah yes - that old saw.

Used by terrorists worldwide.

"Why can't they just go elsewhere"......used by bigots worldwide!

[anonymous-user]

Einion Yrth said:

SpeckledJim said:

RobinOakapple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

popeyewhite said:

ATG said:

Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society

No, they're out of step with the law.

They are out of step with both.

No. Most people think the scenario ridiculous and can't see why the litigants didn't just go elsewhere for their cake.

Not that I've spoken to. Most people think it's blatant discrimination based on crackpot religious nonsense and are glad they lost.

Then the people you've spoken to are evidently not an average cross section of society. Perhaps the circle you move in is too restricted, thus colouring your views.

I don't think any of us can claim to speak for most of us.

Apparently some feel they can...

La Liga said:

The bigger picture is that we don't want a society where those who provide goods and services pick and choose whom they want to serve based upon sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion etc.

The courts who are interpreting and enforcing the law created in a democracy agree, and it's they who matter in these circumstances.

[popeyewhite]

SpeckledJim said:

And why 'the blacks' can't just stay in another hotel, and, and, and...

Control yourself.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

Legal or not, they weren't discriminating on who they provided a service to.

[otolith]

MTech535 said:

otolith said:

MTech535 said:

I thought that both religious beliefs and sexual orientation were both protected characteristics under European equality laws.

From this case it would appear that one is more protected than the other.

judgement said:

District Judge Brownlie then considered the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. She considered that she was required to read down the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order so as to include reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of the appellants’ beliefs. The judge determined that the relevant anti-discrimination provisions were necessary in a democratic society and were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the respondent. To do otherwise would be to allow religious belief to dictate what the law is. The first and second appellants were entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them, but this must be done in accordance with the law and that included not manifesting them in the commercial sphere if the manner of doing so was contrary to the rights of others. Finally, having made the finding of fact that the appellants were not required to support, promote or endorse the respondent’s viewpoint, the judge went on to find that, in any event, the anti-discrimination provisions in the relevant legislation were a proportionate interference permitted under Article 10(2) of the ECHR.

First and second appellants are the directors of the company, third appellant is the company itself.

Yes, that is what I was referring to with my second sentence.

I would say that a careful balance is being struck, which is far less one-sided than it was when religious sensibilities dominated Irish politics.

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

Ah yes - that old saw.

Used by terrorists worldwide.

Your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

[SpeckledJim]

RobinOakapple said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?

It is not, Eric. The courts have explained why they feel it isn't and they are the arbiters, not you.

I'm not trying to be an arbiter. I'm just expressing my view. Or is that illegal now as well?

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

Perhaps if the bakers were Muslims rather than Christians they wouldn't have faced prosecution.

Perhaps. You are at liberty to find a Muslim baker and put it to the test.

[SpeckledJim]

popeyewhite said:

SpeckledJim said:

And why 'the blacks' can't just stay in another hotel, and, and, and...

Control yourself.

It's the same though, isn't it.

[RobinOakapple]

SpeckledJim said:

RobinOakapple said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Derek Smith said:

Eric Mc said:

Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?

It is not, Eric. The courts have explained why they feel it isn't and they are the arbiters, not you.

I'm not trying to be an arbiter. I'm just expressing my view. Or is that illegal now as well?

You are fully entitled to your view, as indeed am I, but if the courts have found that the actions of the bakery have breached a law then the suggestion that their conduct is in line with NI law is wrong. You can, of course, disagree with equality law, as can anyone. There is no law compelling anyone to change their mind in line with a change of legislation, only their conduct. If they behave in a discriminatory manner they face being penalised.

I feel that any company or institution that is discriminatory should be penalised, including, perhaps especially, those religions which discriminate on the grounds of gender amongst other prejudicial beliefs and pronouncements. However, I have to live in a world where they can get away with offensive behaviour because they have a belief in myth and magic. Bakers haven't got that trump card to play so they have to comply.

Perhaps if the bakers were Muslims rather than Christians they wouldn't have faced prosecution.

Perhaps. You are at liberty to find a Muslim baker and put it to the test.

As are you.

I'm also at liberty to muse on the subject without putting it to the test, which in any case would depend on the CPS and others.