Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

Common Sense In A Court

Featured Posts

So would it be OK to 'ice' a cake supporting terrorism ?

 

The Christian owners of a bakery who refused to make a cake supporting gay marriage were not discriminatory, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The McArthur family, who run Ashers bakery in Belfast, won their appeal in a unanimous ruling in London in what has become widely known as the "gay cake case".

The legal action was originally brought against the family-run bakery by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case initially in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

 

Lady Hale added: "The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/christian-bakers-who-refused-to-make-gay-marriage-cake-not-discriminatory-supreme-court-rules-a3958121.html

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me as a sensible ruling otherwise a printer could be forced to print leaflets supporting UKIP when they disagreed with its aims.  I was always under the belief (probably wrongly) that you had the right to refuse custom providing it wasn't on the grounds of racism, sexuality etc.

 

This wasn't because the person was gay otherwise they could have got the cake by sending in somebody who was straight.  It was because they did not wish to support gay marriage just like the printer may not wish to support UKIP (by producing the leaflets.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money. The chap who had the cake order refused should have approached another cake maker in the area, I'm sure he could have found one with a fraction of he effort he put into the mess this case turned into.

 

At the end of the day, the bakery has as much right to be offended by the message as the claimant had to be by being refused the order.

 

A judgment based on law but also, on this occasion, common sense. We do not need separate laws for people of different sexual persuasions.   

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jerra said:

It strikes me as a sensible ruling otherwise a printer could be forced to print leaflets supporting UKIP when they disagreed with its aims.  I was always under the belief (probably wrongly) that you had the right to refuse custom providing it wasn't on the grounds of racism, sexuality etc.

 

This wasn't because the person was gay otherwise they could have got the cake by sending in somebody who was straight.  It was because they did not wish to support gay marriage just like the printer may not wish to support UKIP (by producing the leaflets.)

But in reality, printers don’t care what they print as long as you have the money. Has a printer ever refused to print a UKIP leaflet? I very much doubt it. Do you imagine that printers trawl through every document they print looking for something that might offend them. Of course they don’t.

 

It was only an issue with the bakers because they are filled with hatred for gay people and can’t countenance the possibility that two people might love each other enough to want to get married despite their naughty bits both being on the outside. Marriage is an institution of the state, it is nothing to do with religion and so they were making a political point disguised with some extremist  religious excuse, ironically using a religion which purports to promote love, tolerance and forgiveness. It’s not as though the cake said “have sex with babies” or something. Gay marriage is legal in all parts of the U.K. except NI and so the concept is hardly something outrageous and socially unacceptable.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not religious, but if you are, it makes a difference. As long as they didn't refuse to make the cake, I see no reason to prosecute for refusing to write on their product something that they couldn't agree with on religious grounds. . If religion is allowed, what do you suggest? The prosecution can't tell the baker to disregard what their faith causes them to believe, and disregard, for the sake of being politically correct.

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I'm not religious, but if you are, it makes a difference. As long as they didn't refuse to make the cake, I see no reason to prosecute for refusing to write on their product something that they couldn't agree with on religious grounds. . If religion is allowed, what do you suggest? The prosecution can't tell the baker to disregard what their faith causes them to believe, and disregard, for the sake of being politically correct.

So how about those people whose religious faith tells them to thrown homosexuals off tall building, randomly rape women and kill unbelievers? Should their views be respected? How about those religious people who intentionally cover up child sex abuse in their midst in order to save their church’s face? Or steal babies from unmarried mothers having first locked them away out of sight? Should that be condoned because it is part of their religion? I suggest not.

 

Rather like religious people picking and choosing which verses of the bible to quote to support their preconceived point and totally ignoring other contradictory verses, it seems many people are happy to do likewise with this issue.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oooooooooooooooh don't get me started

don't care what you like as in one up the tradesmans entrance or icing on the brow of the hill  what ever we don't need to make your icing just float your own boat be happy ffs

and if you need help just ask but don't make flags and wave em nelson and me isn't interested

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

So how about those people whose religious faith tells them to thrown homosexuals off tall building, randomly rape women and kill unbelievers? Should their views be respected? How about those religious people who intentionally cover up child sex abuse in their midst in order to save their church’s face? Or steal babies from unmarried mothers having first locked them away out of sight? Should that be condoned because it is part of their religion? I suggest not.

 

Rather like religious people picking and choosing which verses of the bible to quote to support their preconceived point and totally ignoring other contradictory verses, it seems many people are happy to do likewise with this issue.

How about people who were both religious and gay, where might they stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

How about people who were both religious and gay, where might they stand?

Its not mutually exclusive to be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

How about people who were both religious and gay, where might they stand?

They can come and stand with me at the bar if they like - I'm happy to make room. :)

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely the overall principle is, is a business allowed to refuse to take an order without having to justify their decision ?

Well no actually you are incorrect. A business is not allowed to refuse to take an order because they dislike a protected attribute of the person. So a hotel can’t turn someone away because they are gay.

 

Of course it isn’t that simple in this case - they profess that it isn’t to do with the chap being gay, just that they didn’t like the political message. Hmmm, not sure their bible has much to say about politics! It seems to me just an excuse - using religion to make a political point. Fairly despicable and most un-christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely the overall principle is, is a business allowed to refuse to take an order without having to justify their decision ?

Exactly, thereby hangs a problem.

As a publican in London in the 80s I could refuse to serve somebody, or bar them or ask them to leave without having to give any reason.  A sensible way of operating as anyone you wished to treat as such was usually drunk and or argumentative, so you didn't want protracted conversation with them.

The law is now different, you can't do any of the above because it could be hiding an illegal discrimination.

Telling someone that they are an irritating drunk who can't hold their booze and don't know how to behave in public rarely goes down well and tends to lead to personal insult, loose teeth and broken jaws.

 

This business of it being the message that offended has only just been thought of and had no part in the original court decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a bit silly though isn't it? It's just a """"""" cake. People are dying of cancer because waiting lists are too long and others are living in shop doorways in the middle of winter. 

Edited by LadyG
edited by moderator Lady G
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

It's all a bit silly though isn't it? It's just a ******* cake. People are dying of cancer because waiting lists are too long and others are living in shop doorways in the middle of winter. 

I don't the cake was the issue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

So how about those people whose religious faith tells them to thrown homosexuals off tall building, randomly rape women and kill unbelievers? Should their views be respected? How about those religious people who intentionally cover up child sex abuse in their midst in order to save their church’s face? Or steal babies from unmarried mothers having first locked them away out of sight? Should that be condoned because it is part of their religion? I suggest not.

 

Rather like religious people picking and choosing which verses of the bible to quote to support their preconceived point and totally ignoring other contradictory verses, it seems many people are happy to do likewise with this issue.

 

But they didn't threaten their lives. The religious, here, are entitled to their ways as much as gay people. Is there  a law that suggests otherwise in this country. The gays wanted their rights acknowledged, and those of the religious overruled.

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MJG said:

I don't the cake was the issue though.

OK let's be pedantic. It was the fact that a homosexual took exception to the fact that a Christian took exception to the fact that said homosexual wanted a message on a wedding cake promoting homosexuality. The Christian believed he had the right to refuse to supply the cake, as it didn't fit with his religious beliefs.   

 

The homosexual on the other hand, felt that he was being discriminated against, because he was homosexual. Rather than go elsewhere he chose to enlist the help of the equality commission who spent £200,000 of public money.

 

Most of us who are (I think it's fair to say) neither gay nor religious probably think this whole matter is a farce, and a complete waste of public money.

 

If gay people were struggling to be served up and down the land I think there might be a place for public money to be spent, in order to avoid their persecution. But in the current climate, where alternative sexuality is celebrated as if it's the saviour of mankind, I hardly think that's necessary.  

  • Greenie 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

OK let's be pedantic. It was the fact that a homosexual took exception to the fact that a Christian took exception to the fact that said homosexual wanted a message on a wedding cake promoting homosexuality. The Christian believed he had the right to refuse to supply the cake, as it didn't fit with his religious beliefs.   

 

The homosexual on the other hand, felt that he was being discriminated against, because he was homosexual. Rather than go elsewhere he chose to enlist the help of the equality commission who spent £200,000 of public money.

 

Most of us who are (I think it's fair to say) neither gay nor religious probably think this whole matter is a farce, and a complete waste of public money.

 

If gay people were struggling to be served up and down the land I think there might be a place for public money to be spent, in order to avoid their persecution. But in the current climate, where alternative sexuality is celebrated as if it's the saviour of mankind, I hardly think that's necessary.  

Actually the message was promoting same sex marriage, not homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

OK let's be pedantic. It was the fact that a homosexual took exception to the fact that a Christian took exception to the fact that said homosexual wanted a message on a wedding cake promoting homosexuality. The Christian believed he had the right to refuse to supply the cake, as it didn't fit with his religious beliefs.   

 

The homosexual on the other hand, felt that he was being discriminated against, because he was homosexual. Rather than go elsewhere he chose to enlist the help of the equality commission who spent £200,000 of public money.

 

Most of us who are (I think it's fair to say) neither gay nor religious probably think this whole matter is a farce, and a complete waste of public money.

 

If gay people were struggling to be served up and down the land I think there might be a place for public money to be spent, in order to avoid their persecution. But in the current climate, where alternative sexuality is celebrated as if it's the saviour of mankind, I hardly think that's necessary.  

Regarding your last paragraph, one should remember that the country is very varied in its attitudes to such things. In London, of course you are right. In Belfast, you are wrong. It’s pointless to judge goings on in one of those cities by the attitudes prevalent in the other.

g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong here. But, the bakers were being accused, and I think it isn't easy to argue that they had no rights.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

But they didn't threaten their lives. The religious, here, are entitled to their ways as much as gay people. Is there  a law that suggests otherwise in this country. The gays wanted their rights acknowledged, and those of the religious overruled.

 

The IS rapists didnt threaten their lives. Nor did the catholic establishment who facilitated child sex abuse. So you are doing the “selective choosing of text to suit your agenda” thing.

 

For the bottom line is thus:

 

If people are so stupid as to base their lives on some imaginary god then that’s fine by me, although I feel slightly sorry for them. Right up to the point where their fantasies start to impinge on the lives of rational-thinking people. Then it becomes unacceptable.

 

I take the same view with homosexuality - gays should be allowed to live the lives they choose provided they don’t, for example, try to force straight people to be gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Regarding your last paragraph, one should remember that the country is very varied in its attitudes to such things. In London, of course you are right. In Belfast, you are wrong. It’s pointless to judge goings on in one of those cities by the attitudes prevalent in the other.

g

I dunno. Back in 2003 everywhere was closed in Belfast apart a small strip of 3 gay bars. Had to flirt a bit with the bouncer (I had a cute face back then). It wasn't underground or anything, the place wasn't being pelted with rocks.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gareth E said:

I dunno. Back in 2003 everywhere was closed in Belfast apart a small strip of 3 gay bars. Had to flirt a bit with the bouncer (I had a cute face back then). It wasn't underground or anything, the place wasn't being pelted with rocks.    

Of course there were gay bars etc. Out of sight out of mind. But how about 2 blokes holding hands or kissing in public? Common in London these days, I would very much doubt it is seen in Belfast. And let’s face it, this whole argument is a result of gay marriage being legal in every part of the U.K. except NI. NI which doesn’t even have a government because two factions of the same religion can’t, won’t and don’t want to get on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.