ashers bakery

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Yes if the alternative would have ended up costing me over £300,000 in legal bills to prove a point nobody cares about,  I can honestly say I would have printed their t shirts, 

But lets just put this whole thing into context, it was two Sesame street characters, not some heavy politically loaded message 

you mean to prove a point you don't care about.  

And it was heavy, politically loaded message. You're talking freedom of beliefs vs gay rights. That's about as politically loaded as you can get, that's why it went through three different courts and put two very powerful organisations against each other. It does matter; because it's about what the nature of freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs are and what happens when those two seem to conflict.

But, as it's something you don't care about, I'm assuming you've never complained about 'political correctness gone mad', or what the implications of it can be for society 

[Vince Green]

8 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

you mean to prove a point you don't care about.  

And it was heavy, politically loaded message. You're talking freedom of beliefs vs gay rights. That's about as politically loaded as you can get, that's why it went through three different courts and put two very powerful organisations against each other. It does matter; because it's about what the nature of freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs are and what happens when those two seem to conflict.

But, as it's something you don't care about, I'm assuming you've never complained about 'political correctness gone mad', or what the implications of it can be for society 

You are absolutely right I don't care, it was only a cake with two sesame street characters on it. Lifes too short to worry about a cake. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Vince Green

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

You are absolutely right I don't care, it was only a cake with two sesame street characters on it. Lifes too short to worry about a cake. 

You're not getting it. It's not about the cake, it's about civil liberties. But if you want to be that disengaged from how your society functions and how your civil liberties are protected then that is your choice.

It just means if/when someone tries to ban shooting or anything else you care passionately about (if you actually do, that is), you are gonna have to shut up, because life's too short to worry about a gun, right?

And it wasn't the sesame street characters, it was the slogan. 

[guzzicat]

6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

You're not getting it. It's not about the cake, it's about civil liberties. But if you want to be that disengaged from how your society functions and how your civil liberties are protected then that is your choice.

It just means if/when someone tries to ban shooting or anything else you care passionately about (if you actually do, that is), you are gonna have to shut up, because life's too short to worry about a gun, right?

And it wasn't the sesame street characters, it was the slogan. 

I think this nails it, put it to bed.

[henry d]

A quick search tells me there are at least 3 ASDA  superstores in Belfast, in our local store we can have a cake printed with a design of our choosing and reasonably priced too. Why did they not go there? Spot on again Chris, heavily political

[millrace]

18 minutes ago, henry d said:

A quick search tells me there are at least 3 ASDA  superstores in Belfast, in our local store we can have a cake printed with a design of our choosing and reasonably priced too. Why did they not go there? Spot on again Chris, heavily political

Because he knew where he was going and the reaction he would likely recieve and already knew the course of action along with backing he was going to take...... .

[henry d]

Absolutely, and without a doubt

[Gunnut]

The right decision in my view.

[panoma1]

51 minutes ago, millrace said:

Because he knew where he was going and the reaction he would likely recieve and already knew the course of action along with backing he was going to take...... .

Yep! Political activist acting as agent provocateur.....exactly the same as a hunt saboteur........despicable inadequates!

[ditchman]

im sure the bakery would have baked them a nice cake.......then they could have taken it away and plastered messages all over it............

 

the car manufactures dont plaster stupid messages all over their cars...................they sell them stock.............and then the customer can do what he/she or it likes............

 

remember when Ballotelli bought a new aston martin....then painted in camo colours.......what a dauk...........

Edited October 11, 2018 by ditchman

[Lord v]

Absolutely the right decision.

No one should be forced to say something they don't want to.

(Think about the implications in the legal field for a start...)

Edited October 11, 2018 by Lord v

[grrclark]

Some great comments Chris, you have represented what the arguments at the heart of this case are all about.

Sadly those arguments are not understood by many, on either side if the fence.

[Gordon R]

My view is that the bakery was deliberately targeted.  If they had accepted the order, would the customer have had a change of heart, preferring to take the custom to somewhere where it would be refused?

I will own up to having sympathy with Vince Green's view - it is only a cake and they are in business. That said - given that they were targeted and it has a deeper significance, I would have refused.

[Scully]

I have to agree, it was the right decision. My OH has designed all mannner of posters and literature, but turns down any with political or religious agenda, simplynon the basis that she isn’t interested in either.  It is only right that she has the freedom to choose. 

[grrclark]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

I have to agree, it was the right decision. My OH has designed all mannner of posters and literature, but turns down any with political or religious agenda, simplynon the basis that she isn’t interested in either.  It is only right that she has the freedom to choose. 

A perfect real life example of why this case was important.

[henry d]

Slight tangent, does a shop have the right not to sell an item with/out giving a reason?

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, henry d said:

Slight tangent, does a shop have the right not to sell an item with/out giving a reason?

According to my OH, who once had a shop, yes, they do. 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, henry d said:

Slight tangent, does a shop have the right not to sell an item with/out giving a reason?

How do you mean ?
If the item is on the shelf or in a window with a price, one could reasonably expect it was for sale ?
The same could be said if the item is ordered, like a cake.
If when attempting to purchase said item, and the vendor doesnt want to sell, he could say , that is no longer for sale, or it has been sold pending collection, or I cannot fulfill that order ,I am too busy.
What the vendor shouldnt say is, 'I am not going to sell you that item because I am prejudiced against your sexuality/ race / gender ect'

Chris has it right, but the whole thing could have been avoided with a little tact, and a small lie.

[KB1]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

How do you mean ?
If the item is on the shelf or in a window with a price, one could reasonably expect it was for sale ?
The same could be said if the item is ordered, like a cake.
If when attempting to purchase said item, and the vendor doesnt want to sell, he could say , that is no longer for sale, or it has been sold pending collection, or I cannot fulfill that order ,I am too busy.
What the vendor shouldnt say is, 'I am not going to sell you that item because I am prejudiced against your sexuality/ race / gender ect'

Chris has it right, but the whole thing could have been avoided with a little tact, and a small lie.

What if someone wanted to buy faggots from the Butcher....... how do you refuse to serve 'them'?

[grrclark]

23 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

How do you mean ?
If the item is on the shelf or in a window with a price, one could reasonably expect it was for sale ?
The same could be said if the item is ordered, like a cake.
If when attempting to purchase said item, and the vendor doesnt want to sell, he could say , that is no longer for sale, or it has been sold pending collection, or I cannot fulfill that order ,I am too busy.
What the vendor shouldnt say is, 'I am not going to sell you that item because I am prejudiced against your sexuality/ race / gender ect'

Chris has it right, but the whole thing could have been avoided with a little tact, and a small lie.

That’s not what they did though.

They said we cannot make a cake with that message, that does not mean they’re prejudiced.

It is such an important distinction, not agreeing with something does not imply or infer prejudice and we must not conflate the two very different things.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

They said we cannot make a cake with that message, that does not mean they’re prejudiced.

At which point they would ask 'why not?'  Obviously the answer was not to their liking.
Hence 4 years of court cases and stress/financial loss.

[panoma1]

I am not entirely sure, but I believe if something is in a shop with a price on it, it is an "offer" if someone agrees to pay the for sale price, that is an "acceptance"......these terms form a contract. That is why if you go into a shop and an item is marked up at a price, even if that price is wrongly marked up below the value....if you accept the item, it is your right to buy it at the wrongly marked price.

[grrclark]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

At which point they would ask 'why not?'  Obviously the answer was not to their liking.
Hence 4 years of court cases and stress/financial loss.

It was certainly unliked by the complainant, but he also inferred prejudice where there was none.

If they said we do not agree with that message that is absolutely fine and not prejudicial.

If they said we don’t want to make a cake for your kind that would be prejudicial.

Very big difference.

Just now, panoma1 said:

I am not entirely sure, but I believe if something is in a shop with a price on it, it is an "offer" if someone agrees to pay the for sale price, that is an "acceptance"......these terms form a contract. That is why if you go into a shop and an item is marked up at a price, even if that price is wrongly marked up below the value....if you accept the item, it is your right to buy it at the wrongly marked price.

That isn’t entirely accurate either, the shop do have a right to deny the sale if they state the wrong price is displayed in error.

[Gordon R]

Quote

I am not entirely sure, but I believe if something is in a shop with a price on it, it is an "offer" if someone agrees to pay the for sale price, that is an "acceptance"......these terms form a contract. That is why if you go into a shop and an item is marked up at a price, even if that price is wrongly marked up below the value....if you accept the item, it is your right to buy it at the wrongly marked price.

That is incorrect. The vendor is not obliged to sell at the lower price.

grrclark - that is the vital difference.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, grrclark said:

It was certainly unliked by the complainant, but he also inferred prejudice where there was none.

If they said we do not agree with that message that is absolutely fine and not prejudicial.

If they said we don’t want to make a cake for your kind that would be prejudicial.

Very big difference.

You are correct, however it is the inference of prejudice that got this case as far as it did.

Purchaser wants cake with slogan, vendor doesnt agree with slogan, so refuses to make cake.
By inference, the purchaser has been associated with something the vendor finds offensive or distasteful .
Purchaser being an 'activist' has got a large bee in his bonnet, and sets off on his mission.

The mistake I made in my first post was, I didnt know the shop actually took the order, Ashers head office cancelled it due to not agreeing with the slogan.
What they could have done was used some other excuse other than not agreeing to the slogan, lie basically.
But obviously Ashers have decided to stand up for their beliefs , which are obviously not agreeing to gay marriage.
You could infer from that, they find homosexuality and same sex marriage offensive, due to their Christian beliefs.
They have won the case because this prejudice was proved wasnt directed at the purchaser, although he FELT discriminated by association.
Hence the early winning case(s) ?
Sorry if Ive made that sound more complicated than what it actually is !