Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[TwigtheWonderkid]

sidicks said:

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

No, just the level of service. Which, it turns out, isn't lawful.

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

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.

What legal basis would it be different for them?

[RobinOakapple]

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

[ATG]

RobinOakapple said:

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.

How on earth do you know?

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Not so much a point made as an innuendo trailed.

[joshcowin]

Not read the whole topic, nor particularly interested in the story, seems pretty sad, however -

The baker clearly feels strongly about this issue, he feels that homosexuality is not right, why is his view not respected? Why must he carry out a task he is not ethically comfortable undertaking?

[RobinOakapple]

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

I disagree. I think the bakers were seen as a soft target.

[Eric Mc]

SpeckledJim said:

Eric Mc said:

Ah yes - that old saw.

Used by terrorists worldwide.

Your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

Indeed they are.

I just shiver a bit when somebody says "The end justifies the means".

[Eric Mc]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

I really despair at the lack of intellect displayed by some people.

I have nothing against gay people. Indeed, some of my best friends etc.....

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

I disagree. I think the bakers were seen as a soft target.

You disagree on what basis though? If everything were the same except the religion changed why would the court make a different decision?

[sidicks]

Nanook said:

Because discriminating against someone, based on their sexuality, is illegal.

He's not discriminating against anyone.

He is happy to serve a homosexual customer in exactly the same way with the same goods as a heterosexual customer (and seemingly has done on previous occassions).

Had a heterosexual person asked for the exact same message on a cake, they would also have been rejected. So the bakers actions are entirely consistent and not discriminatory.

Nanook said:

It's actually quite straightforward, I don't know why Eric is keeping this thread going. He must understand, he might as well tell us he doesn't like gays and be done with it.

Strawman nonsense.

It seems you don't understand the key nuances of this case.

[RobinOakapple]

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

I disagree. I think the bakers were seen as a soft target.

You disagree on what basis though? If everything were the same except the religion changed why would the court make a different decision?

I start to see the basis of your misunderstanding. I think it wouldn't get to court.

[unrepentant]

joshcowin said:

Not read the whole topic, nor particularly interested in the story, seems pretty sad, however -

The baker clearly feels strongly about this issue, he feels that homosexuality is not right, why is his view not respected? Why must he carry out a task he is not ethically comfortable undertaking?

So if he thought that the teachings of the Jewish faith were "not right" you'd have no problem with him refusing service to Jews?

[sidicks]

unrepentant said:

So if he thought that the teachings of the Jewish faith were "not right" you'd have no problem with him refusing service to Jews?

He's not refunding to serve anyone.

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

I disagree. I think the bakers were seen as a soft target.

You disagree on what basis though? If everything were the same except the religion changed why would the court make a different decision?

I start to see the basis of your misunderstanding. I think it wouldn't get to court.

You've proposed Islam would be treated differently (at whatever stage) but not stated why.

[joshcowin]

sidicks said:

unrepentant said:

So if he thought that the teachings of the Jewish faith were "not right" you'd have no problem with him refusing service to Jews?

He's not refusing to serve anyone.

This!!

He has been 'asked' to make a bespoke cake, he has refused, I cannot see why this has blown up!!

I would imagine he does not care what and who his customers are however when asked to construct/put his name to something he does not agree with why should he?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

sidicks said:

Strawman nonsense.

It seems you don't understand the key nuances of this case.

No, you don't. They make cakes with slogans and messages iced onto them. They would happily produce a cake promoting an anti gay marriage event, but not one endorsing gay marriage. The reason they give for that is that they are opposed to homosexuality. They are bringing their personal beliefs, which are their own affair, into their business dealings with the public, which is the public's affair

That's discrimination based on sexuality.

It's so obvious and so wrong that I'm amazed there's even a debate about it

[SpeckledJim]

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

I think we're agreeing with each other.

Whether it's Christians or Muslims or any other religion, if there's a chance to illuminate their prejudice and underline the hypocrisy of their proclaimed morality, peace and love, then let's get on with it.

Hound the pious beggars!

[RobinOakapple]

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

RobinOakapple said:

La Liga said:

What legal basis would it be different for them?

There wouldn't be one, but that's exactly the point I am making.

Indeed, so it's unlikely there'd be a different outcome.

I disagree. I think the bakers were seen as a soft target.

You disagree on what basis though? If everything were the same except the religion changed why would the court make a different decision?

I start to see the basis of your misunderstanding. I think it wouldn't get to court.

You've proposed Islam would be treated differently (at whatever stage) but not stated why.

I did say why, because the bakers are Christians and were seen as a soft target. The obvious implication is that other targets are harder.