ashers bakery

[Vince Green]

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

That would be offensive to a lot of people. Some people have their beliefs and are willing to stand buy them.   

 

Just now, ordnance said:

By being willing to be trailed trough the courts for their beliefs, agree with them or not.  I think Ashers come out of this with a lot of credit. 

I don't, I don't actually believe it was ever about their beliefs, I personally and sincerely believe that the manager gobbed off, playing the big man in front of an audience and then refused to back down. But that's only my belief, I respect your view and your right to hold it.

[12gauge82]

Absolutely the right decision, although there should never have been a case in the first place. This country is getting more ridiculous by the day.

[ordnance]

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

 

I don't, I don't actually believe it was ever about their beliefs, I personally and sincerely believe that the manager gobbed off, playing the big man in front of an audience and then refused to back down. But that's only my belief, I respect your view and your right to hold it.

When you say your belief where do you get that from, there must be something that makes you think that. That's like me saying the earth is flat but that's just my belief, people would not take me seriously unless i had some evidence. 

[Vince Green]

2 minutes ago, millrace said:

Ashers in the past have refused other orders without anyone taking them to court and are well known locally for there strong beliefs..so of coarse they wouldnt be "targeted" .....

Why do you refuse to accept the the verdict has a bigger picture to it than as you say just a cake.......

 

Its my view, i'm entitled to it. I don't accept Ashers have a right to behave any differently to anybody else. Are you somehow suggesting that because they 'strong views' that moves the goalposts?

[millrace]

No im asking how you cannot accept what this verdict actually means for other buisness owners right to refuse something....

Edited October 11, 2018 by millrace

[Vince Green]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

When you say your belief where do you get that from, there must be something that makes you think that. That's like me saying the earth is flat but that's just my belief, people would not take me seriously unless i had some evidence. 

You are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. If you believed the earth was flat, I may think you are a bit crazy, but I would respect your right to hold that view  not abuse you, or throw   insults at you . I live in London, surrounded by people that believe all manner of things that I passionately don't. 

[chrisjpainter]

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

Its my view, i'm entitled to it. I don't accept Ashers have a right to behave any differently to anybody else. Are you somehow suggesting that because they 'strong views' that moves the goalposts?

They are not looking for an exemption, this was never about trying to have one rule for them and one rule for everyone else. Quite the reverse. It was about what the law can and cannot be used for in a liberal society. Every member of the appeal panel agreed that this was a case where the law had been unfairly used to impinge on a person's right to freedom of beliefs. This was a battle of what it means to be politically correct - and what it doesn't mean in practice. 

 

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

You are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. If you believed the earth was flat, I may think you are a bit crazy, but I would respect your right to hold that view  not abuse you, or throw   insults at you . I live in London, surrounded by people that believe all manner of things that I passionately don't. 

But that is exactly what this case is about. By bringing the action against the bakery, the claimant wasn't allowing them to hold that view and refused to respect them. Whether it was done maliciously to prove a point or not (my suspicion is it was, given that he had already ordered from them in the past and probably knew their beliefs but I can't prove that), he tried to use the law to justify his own refusal to respect someone else's beliefs, and finally the law said 'er...no. You live by the same rules of respect and tolerance, you cannot force someone to go against their beliefs, just as they cannot force you to go against yours'. That is what living in a free and open society is about.

If the claimant had been a bit brighter, he'd have realised that the same laws that were used to defeat his argument are the very same laws that protect him against homophobia, bigotry and prejudice. Sadly, he wasn't.

[Vince Green]

7 minutes ago, millrace said:

No im asking how you cannot accept what this verdict actually means for other buisness owners right to refuse something....

That's the Northern Ireland mindset in you coming out, why would anyone want to refuse a perfectly legal request for a harmless slogan on a cake? and why would they want to spend upwards of £300,000 defending that refusal? If you can't see the pointlessness of their position I'm not going to argue it with you. I'm not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine.

[ordnance]

14 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

You are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. If you believed the earth was flat, I may think you are a bit crazy, but I would respect your right to hold that view  not abuse you, or throw   insults at you . I live in London, surrounded by people that believe all manner of things that I passionately don't. 

Its not abuse, i am interested where you get the belief from that the manager was gobbing off and playing the big man and that is what this is all about. Was there something said in court or something i missed. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by ordnance

[millrace]

I give up......

yet again your ignoring the actual verdict  and what it was based on.....

Northern ireland mindset.....thats a good one......carefull ordnance your mindset is the problem here.....

 

[Gordon R]

I haven't delved into the case as deep as with other subjects.

Vince says that they took the order, with the caption and had a change of heart at the point of handing the cake over. If that is the case, they have not been consistent and that is why I say neither party comes out of this with credit.

[ordnance]

7 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

That's the Northern Ireland mindset in you coming out, why would anyone want to refuse a perfectly legal request for a harmless slogan on a cake? and why would they want to spend upwards of £300,000 defending that refusal? If you can't see the pointlessness of their position I'm not going to argue it with you. I'm not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine.

You say it was a harmless slogan that is your opinion, and as you have said you are entitled to it. But others are also entitled to their opinion that it is not a harmless slogan and promotes something they find offensive and do not believe in. 

[chrisjpainter]

10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

That's the Northern Ireland mindset in you coming out, why would anyone want to refuse a perfectly legal request for a harmless slogan on a cake? and why would they want to spend upwards of £300,000 defending that refusal? If you can't see the pointlessness of their position I'm not going to argue it with you. I'm not going to change your view and you are not going to change mine.

er...how is it a Northern Ireland mindset, given that the same opinions have been brought up by plenty of us this side of the Irish Sea too...

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

You say it was a harmless slogan that is your opinion, and as you have said you are entitled to it. But others are also entitled to their opinion that it is not a harmless slogan and promotes something they find offensive and do not believe in. 

or that they passionately agree with

[Vince Green]

25 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Its not abuse, i am interested where you get the belief from that the manager was gobbing off and playing the big man and that is what this is all about. Was there something said in court or something i missed. 

I believe there was but does it really matter? the whole thing is just so pathetic, its really not worth the effort, I have to be up in the morning early so I'm off to bed. Its good to chat, even if we will never agree, and I suspect we won't.,  

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Its my view, i'm entitled to it. I don't accept Ashers have a right to behave any differently to anybody else. Are you somehow suggesting that because they 'strong views' that moves the goalposts?

Indeed you are entitled to a view, it doesn't however confer any obligation on any others to hold your view as having any credibility or validity and whilst you are expressing that view in a debate then others are entitled to challenge your view.

I personally believe that the judgement of the supreme court today was a seminal moment in that it protects the rights of service providers to withhold a service on the basis of principle, providing that it is not prejudicial to the rights of others and that is extremely important.  It is way more than "just a cake".

I applaud the Asher's in pursuing this as far as they have, principle is far too often sacrificed at the alter of convenience or cash.

[henry d]

Lee went into the bakers before the cake incident, something I have only just learned, I think it is possible that he did want a cake and no hassle but after paying for it and later being denied it he was upset which led to the case. I can`t agree with Vince`s idea that the manager "gobbed off" as that would have been a chink in the argument of the christian baker in court. It also allows the team at Asher`s to say that they don`t refuse service to someone who is gay, just that they could not allow, due to their beliefs, such a slogan.

Does anyone have definitive proof that the cake was baked and decorated as Mrs. McArthur said;

Quote

“[h]aving taken the order, I immediately felt guilty about it. I knew that using our skills and creativity to produce a cake supporting gay marriage – which we consider to be contrary to God’s word – was something which would be on my conscience. If we provided the cake in these terms, I would feel that I was betraying my faith and failing to live in accordance with what God expects of me. … Individually and as a family we decided that what was to be on the cake was against our Christian beliefs … We could not promote same-sex marriage because it is against God’s word … I wish to emphasise that this is in no way related to Mr Lee’s sexual orientation. We have many gay customers whom we serve regularly without any difficulty. We also have at least one gay member of staff … Similarly, the decision was not based on Mr Lee’s political opinion or religious beliefs … we had no idea what his opinions or beliefs were, if any” (My emphasis)

In retrospect they chose not to supply the cake as it was against their religious view and believed that this was right because it could conflict with their freedom of conscience or religious belief which is protected in law. If they had already made the cake with the slogan then I think it would have been a harder case to win.

[KB1]

My daughter labels me as homophobic because I don't believe in gay marriage.  I don't agree with putting ketchup on everything........ I wonder if they'll come up with a label for that one soon🙄

It's a sad world when your not allowed to have an opinion that doesn't suit the PC brigade, yet they have opinions in abundance!

Edited October 12, 2018 by KB1

[Stonepark]

He  had  previously  bought  cakes  from  Ashers  shop  in  Royal  Avenue,  Belfast, but  he  was  not  personally  known  to  the  staff  or  to  Mr  and  Mrs  McArthur.  He  did  not know  anything  about  the  McArthurs’  beliefs  about  marriage  and  neither  they  nor their  staff  knew  of  his  sexual  orientatio n.  Ashers  offered  a  “BuildaCake”  service to  customers.  Customers  could  request  particular  images  or  inscriptions  to  be  iced onto  a  cake.  There  was  a  leaflet  advertising  this  service,  with  various  examples  of what could  be done, but no religious or politi cal restrictions were  mentioned.

2. On  8  or  9  May  2014,  Mr  Lee  went  into  the  shop  and  placed  an  order  for  a cake  to  be  iced  with  his  design,  a  coloured  picture  of  cartoonlike  characters  “Bert and  Ernie”,  the  QueerSpace  logo,  and  the  headline  “Support  Gay  Mar riage”.  Mrs McArthur  took  the  order  but  raised  no  objection  at  the  time  because  she  wished  to consider  how  to  explain  her  objection  and  to  spare  Mr  Lee  any  embarrassment.  Mr Lee  paid  for  the  cake.  Over  the  following  weekend,  the  McArthurs  decided  that  they could not  in conscience  produce  a cake  with  that slogan  and  so should  not fulfil the order.  On  Monday  12  May  2014,  Mrs  McArthur  telephoned  Mr  Lee  and  explained that  his  order  could  not  be  fulfilled  because  they  were  a  Christian  business  and  could not  prin t  the  slogan  requested.  She  apologised  to  Mr  Lee  and  he  was  later  given  a full refund and the image was returned to him.

 

Case notes above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gordon R]

There is always a danger in offering an opinion without research. I have fallen victim to this - which is entirely my own fault. I have waded through the 29 page judgement and concluded that the bakery was not at fault.

They did not bake the cake and refuse to hand it over. They took the order, having misgivings at the time, and refused to comply after considering further. I think they took a decision, based on their strongly held religious beliefs - see the origins of the company name -"Ashers".

Neither side appears to have used their own funds in the legal process - on one side the taxpayers, on the other a Christian Society.

I don't agree with the complainant, who seems to have taken a slight which wasn't intended and the Equalities Commission, who do not come out of this very well.

[misser]

be interesting to know if he had sued the bakery if it had all been his own money...the correct decision, the land of free speech... I think not...

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, KB1 said:

My daughter labels me as homophobic because I don't believe in gay marriage.  I don't agree with putting ketchup on everything........ I wonder if they'll come up with a label for that one soon🙄

It's a sad world when your not allowed to have an opinion that doesn't suit the PC brigade, yet they have opinions in abundance!

You are entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to share it too, so long as you don’t prejudice the rights of others it’s all ok.

Others may think you are homophobic for having that opinion, but you’re not so long as you don’t act on it prejudicially.

Your earlier comment about refusing to serve faggots in the butcher, I would suggest, be considered on the absolute margins of acceptability with only the very scantest tenuous defence of being anecdotal conjecture to support the premise of your argument.

16 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

There is always a danger in offering an opinion without research. I have fallen victim to this - which is entirely my own fault. I have waded through the 29 page judgement and concluded that the bakery was not at fault.

They did not bake the cake and refuse to hand it over. They took the order, having misgivings at the time, and refused to comply after considering further. I think they took a decision, based on their strongly held religious beliefs - see the origins of the company name -"Ashers".

Neither side appears to have used their own funds in the legal process - on one side the taxpayers, on the other a Christian Society.

I don't agree with the complainant, who seems to have taken a slight which wasn't intended and the Equalities Commission, who do not come out of this very well.

Fair play to you Gordon 👍

[KB1]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

You are entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to share it too, so long as you don’t prejudice the rights of others it’s all ok.

Others may think you are homophobic for having that opinion, but you’re not so long as you don’t act on it prejudicially.

Your earlier comment about refusing to serve faggots in the butcher, I would suggest, be considered on the absolute margins of acceptability with only the very scantest tenuous defence of being anecdotal conjecture to support the premise of your argument.

"On the absolute margins of acceptabilty".............  Like I said, the ketchup will be next🙄

[grrclark]

Just now, KB1 said:

"On the absolute margins of acceptabilty".............  Like I said, the ketchup will be next🙄

Nah, ketchup just makes you a bit saucy.

[scotslad]

Like most on here i too think it is the correct and potentially a very important decision.

 

Would there be the same outrage about a nazi/racist or deeply offensive religous quote or should very business be forced to produce them??

 

Also just because ur not deeply religious or u don't feel gay weddings demean the church it doesn't mean others don't have the right to feel like that.

Some parts of UK are still very deeply religous NI being 1 and another is up west coast/islands of scotland, where they still object to ferries running and shops/petrol stations opening on the sabbath.

I can mind possibly 20 ish years ago a christain couple who ran a B&B being prosectued for not allowing 2 men to sleep together in a double bed, bt did offer them singles in the same B&B.

While they are running a business in many cases a small B&B may very well have been the family home and that was 1 of the kids rooms before they moved out, if they were deeply religous i think they were within there rights to do wot they done.

I wouldn't say they were homophobic as such but just didn't want it shoved in their face (and i'm sure most decent folk would of toned it down a bit so not to upset)

I wouldn't walk into a vege restraunt and demand meat, o i i was in the company of an anti i would not talk about shooting all night it jst having some common sense and decency and not trying to delibertly offend folk if u can, sometimes it seems a 1 way street thou

 

I was also going to bring up the funding issue but see gordon metioned it above, tax payers money was used to try and prosecute the bakery NOT defend it, it was the Christain society who funded the defence.

 

Must admit i'm quite old fashioned in my views for my age but just don't understand this whole gay rights/pride thing marches etc, started haing marches in the local big town and get a whole page in the local paper devoted to it.

Most folk locally really couldnae care less either way, it them that want to label themselves and stand out as different to everyone else.

 

[KB1]

26 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Nah, ketchup just makes you a bit saucy.

Careful how you use that word 'Saucy', you'll have the PC mob after you😜   Just look at poor old Kavanaugh, hauled over the coals for being a 'normal' teenager......