ashers bakery

[grrclark]

Haha i’m doing a bit of part time interim work with a government business just now and let’s just say that my PC beartrap detector is finely tuned.

[KB1]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

Haha i’m doing a bit of part time interim work with a government business just now and let’s just say that my PC beartrap detector is finely tuned.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, scotslad said:

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.

This to me is the interesting bit.
The equalities commission states -

We are an independent statutory body with the responsibility to encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and protect and promote the human rights of everyone in Britain.

The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation – these are known as protected characteristics.

 So, both parties are 'protected characteristics' yes ?
Could someone explain to me why the complainant gets the support from the E.C. and the shop had to get private funding from the church ?
Seems a little unfair to me, is it favouritism for the 'right ' minority ?
I understand that technically speaking the E.C. cannot fight against itself, but surely it could handle arbitration, so it doesnt even get this far ?
What if the shop owners were black, or transexual ? 
Would that make a difference ?
If the E.C. is for 'everyone' that should mean they defend everyone too.

[grrclark]

Oooh Rewulf, now there is a debate that is properly worthy of an alternative way of thinking.

Enough of deep state conspiracy wash and focus on everyday and very real misappropriation of causes and agendas that are genuinely exploitative and prejudicial.

There are tons of examples in that space too, #metoo is a case in point, as is womxn, safe spaces, University of Kent students being barred dressing up as cowboys, but not indians, etc.

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Oooh Rewulf, now there is a debate that is properly worthy of an alternative way of thinking.

Enough of deep state conspiracy wash and focus on everyday and very real misappropriation of causes and agendas that are genuinely exploitative and prejudicial.

There are tons of examples in that space too, #metoo is a case in point, as is womxn, safe spaces, University of Kent students being barred dressing up as cowboys, but not indians, etc.

Very much so , I was going to mention that, but thought we might have all heard enough about such things 

But yes, equality just doesnt seem to be very 'equal' to me.
Yet no one seems brave enough to pop their head up and take a shot at this issue.
And its getting worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45826809

Edited October 12, 2018 by Rewulf
Link for clarity

[pinfireman]

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

This to me is the interesting bit.
The equalities commission states -

We are an independent statutory body with the responsibility to encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and protect and promote the human rights of everyone in Britain.

The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation – these are known as protected characteristics.

 So, both parties are 'protected characteristics' yes ?
Could someone explain to me why the complainant gets the support from the E.C. and the shop had to get private funding from the church ?
Seems a little unfair to me, is it favouritism for the 'right ' minority ?
I understand that technically speaking the E.C. cannot fight against itself, but surely it could handle arbitration, so it doesnt even get this far ?
What if the shop owners were black, or transexual ? 
Would that make a difference ?
If the E.C. is for 'everyone' that should mean they defend everyone too.

I,m with you on this!

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Very much so , I was going to mention that, but thought we might have all heard enough about such things 

But yes, equality just doesnt seem to be very 'equal' to me.
Yet no one seems brave enough to pop their head up and take a shot at this issue.
And its getting worse.

Does anyone remember a High Court ruling about 20 years ago, where "travellers" were deemed to be an ethnic minority, with all the protections that gives! How does someone who is white, from the British Isles,  become an "ethnic" minority? A minority, yes, but "ethnic"?

[Gordon R]

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equalities Commission, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Gordon R

[grrclark]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equal Opportunities, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

And that is even more relevant than the supreme court judgement.

[Rewulf]

23 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equalities Commission, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

Thank you for clarifying that.
Will be interesting to see that explanation.

[henry d]

An interesting aside was Peter Tatchell`s view; he said he disagreed with Asher`s opposition to gay marriage, but that he thought the judgement was right as " ...in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose." A thoughtful view IMO.

[Gordon R]

An unusually objective view from Peter Tatchell.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equalities Commission, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

Was that run by the disgraced Trevor Phillips?

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equalities Commission, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

How much do I want to be a fly on the wall in that little meeting! Some very awkward questions an awful lot of sweating and one or two red faces. I'd also like to see them explain the money spent on the case!

[Gordon R]

Quote

The Court of Appeal expressed some concern that the correspondence between the ECNI and the bakery may have created the impression that the ECNI was not interested in assisting members of the faith community when they found themselves in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs (para 106). It is obviously necessary for a body such as the ECNI to offer its services to all people who may need them because of a protected characteristic and not to give the impression of favouring one such characteristic over others.

These are harsh words.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, chrisjpainter said:

How much do I want to be a fly on the wall in that little meeting! Some very awkward questions an awful lot of sweating and one or two red faces. I'd also like to see them explain the money spent on the case!

Unfortunately that will never happen!

[Gordon R]

Ian Paisley Junior is questioning their funding, as is Steve Aiken, with Jim Allister and Jim Wells calling for the head of the ECNI to quit.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Gordon R

[Westley]

On 10/10/2018 at 18:42, The Mighty Prawn said:

This!

If one of us owned a bakery and someone wanted "Meat eaters are psychopathic killers" iced on it we'd feel within our rights to refuse

On the grounds that "we do not have a long enough cake tin"  I suppose  ?

[wascal]

20 hours ago, Vince Green said:

 Would a Man Utd fan refuse an order bake a cake for a Man City fan if it said Support Man City?

Very probably , Some peoples football beliefs are much stronger than thier religious ones.

I know a fanatic Norwich supporter who won't even go through Ipswich on the train , he goes to london via cambridge .

[ordnance]

It was nothing really to do with who you could chose to serve,  but more about alleged discrimination on the grounds of someones sexual orientation. Which as we know was thrown out by the supreme court.  

[Gordon R]

ordnance - that is the crux of the matter.

[Vince Green]

5 hours ago, Gordon R said:

The original complainant made the complaint to the Equalities Commission, which is why they represented him. The fact that they did not treat the bakers equally was highlighted by the Appeal Court Judges.

The Equalities Commission is now under pressure to explain why there was a bias.

I think the key piece of information which may have influenced opinions was the allegation that the complainant was (allegedly) told to leave the shop and never return. I believe this statement was subsequently denied so who really knows? This whole issue is never going to be resolved. As can be seen by views expressed on here views are polarised.

If a baker in London had done this they would be a charity shop by now. I'm not gay but here in London gay people are everywhere, openly, nobody cares, nobody thinks anything of it. Why should they? What people want to do is their business.

Only in Northern Ireland could this story have legs. it was homophobic, there can be no real doubt (can there be? really?), despite the BS protestations about religious freedom.  I still think its amazing all this could kick off over a stupid cake, in this day and age?, and I do, totally,  believe the complainant was told to leave the shop and don't come back we don't want your sort in here. straightforward gobbing off by the idiot manager, showing off in front of an audience he thought supported his view about gay people.. 

Words, nothing but words, but how much grief? how easily could it all have been prevented? 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Vince Green

[chrisjpainter]

10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I think the key piece of information which may have influenced opinions was the allegation that the complainant was (allegedly) told to leave the shop and never return. I believe this statement was subsequently denied so who really knows? This whole issue is never going to be resolved. As can be seen by views expressed on here views are polarised.

If a baker in London had done this they would be a charity shop by now. I'm not gay but here in London gay people are everywhere, openly, nobody cares, nobody thinks anything of it. Why should they? What people want to do is their business.

Only in Northern Ireland could this story have legs. it was homophobic, there can be no real doubt (can there be? really?), despite the BS protestations about religious freedom.  I still think its amazing all this could kick off over a stupid cake, in this day and age?, and I do, totally,  believe the complainant was told to leave the shop and don't come back we don't want your sort in here. straightforward gobbing off by the idiot manager, showing off in front of an audience. 

Words, nothing but words, but how much grief? how easily could it all have been prevented? 

Except for the fact that the court of appeal ruled that it wasn't, and prominent voices in the gay community said it wasn't, you mean? 

Have you any evidence of that? You know they'd served him in the past, and said to the press time and time again that they'd serve him in the future, right?

[chrisjpainter]

Also, The order was accepted in store, but then head office decided not to accept it, this wasn't done on the shop floor. And one of the shop staff has said that they didn't know the chap was gay and they would have declined the order from anyone, gay or straight. I'm not sure where you're getting the evidence for grandstanding - or for saying not to come back. Head office made the decision not in front of the customer, or in the shop in front of others.

[ordnance]

20 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I think the key piece of information which may have influenced opinions was the allegation that the complainant was (allegedly) told to leave the shop and never return. I believe this statement was subsequently denied so who really knows? This whole issue is never going to be resolved. As can be seen by views expressed on here views are polarised.

If a baker in London had done this they would be a charity shop by now. I'm not gay but here in London gay people are everywhere, openly, nobody cares, nobody thinks anything of it. Why should they? What people want to do is their business.

Only in Northern Ireland could this story have legs. it was homophobic, there can be no real doubt (can there be? really?), despite the BS protestations about religious freedom.  I still think its amazing all this could kick off over a stupid cake, in this day and age?, and I do, totally,  believe the complainant was told to leave the shop and don't come back we don't want your sort in here. straightforward gobbing off by the idiot manager, showing off in front of an audience he thought supported his view about gay people.. 

Words, nothing but words, but how much grief? how easily could it all have been prevented? 

You keep coming out with this, and when asked for evidence for you beliefs you have none you just keep repeating i believe.  

[Vince Green]

16 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Except for the fact that the court of appeal ruled that it wasn't, and prominent voices in the gay community said it wasn't, you mean? 

Have you any evidence of that? You know they'd served him in the past, and said to the press time and time again that they'd serve him in the future, right?

Why do I need evidence? I prefaced my statement by saying in my opinion. I have no knowledge of the statements you make . I certainly don't know that they served him in the future, where did that come from? Is it really that likely if he was sueing them that he would go in there or that they would be happy to take his custom? sounds more than a bit far fetched to me

4 minutes ago, ordnance said:

You keep coming out with this, and when asked for evidence for you beliefs you have none you just keep repeating i believe.  

Yep! I believe, end of

5 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Also, The order was accepted in store, but then head office decided not to accept it, this wasn't done on the shop floor. And one of the shop staff has said that they didn't know the chap was gay and they would have declined the order from anyone, gay or straight. I'm not sure where you're getting the evidence for grandstanding - or for saying not to come back. Head office made the decision not in front of the customer, or in the shop in front of others.

That's still illegal, there was no "head office", its a small family bakers, you really have to check the facts, not make things up. And while we are at it, can we have your sources for the quote from one of the shop staff?  Head Office? please explain ? 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Vince Green