Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1071 of 1136 FirstFirst ... 715719711021106110671068106910701071107210731074107510811121 ... LastLast
Results 10,701 to 10,710 of 11355

Thread: Christian Bakery facing legal action over refusing to make homosexual propaganda cake

  1. #10701
    Politics.ie Member livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    22,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Correct. I think, as you used to think yourself, that people should be allowed to refuse bespoke services.
    I've never said people should be allowed to refuse bespoke services based on discriminatory grounds (i.e. if they would produce the exact same product for one event but not for another).

    So, for example, you think that if I goes into a bakery and ask for a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for my Catholic wedding next week, and next month, a Jewish person goes in and orders a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for their Jewish wedding, the baker is totally justified in accepting the former order but not the latter not on the basis that he does not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant, but solely because he is not willing to cater to a Jewish wedding.

    That is the right to refuse service that you advocate. I have never said I support that. What I have supported is that a baker has, of course, a right to say that they do not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant. To that extent, of course they have a right not to provide bespoke products. But providing a product to one person, but refusing the exact same product to someone else based on the fact that it will be used in, say, a Jewish wedding, is totally unjustifiable.

  2. #10702
    Politics.ie Member IvoShandor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Z'Ha'Dum
    Posts
    7,236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    Shouting is a lost cause. I sometimes think it’s a Merc sock.
    Nah. Even at his worst, he evinces honest outrage. There's none of the sly condescension. I wouldn't compare Merc to my worst enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    In any case, publishing a message is not the same thing as endorsing it. If Ashers make a wedding cake they are not personally congratulating the bride and groom.
    Perhaps they should have iced a subordinate disclaimer "This icing in no way indicates support for the position stated in the message on the part of the baker".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Promoting homophobia is not equivalent to promoting equality for gay people.
    its not the repugnant quality (or otherwise) of the message that's at issue. In large parts of the Mid-West of the USA, Creationism is not controversial (whether it should be is another matter), yet I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse to ice an Earth Creation Anniversary cake "Earth-7 000 years old this year".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Promoting equal rights for gay people isn’t the same as promoting terrorism.
    No, but promoting, say, Sinn Fein is a different thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by AhNowStop View Post
    I would be concerned about this ruling in that it gives the supplying organisation the ability to pick & chose when to provide their services .. this would be ok if it was something illegal but in this case it wasnt..
    For Example - could Ashers bakery or some other company refuse me if I requested a cake with a photo of my local GAA team saying good luck in the All Ireland final ...... What if they are like some crackpot unionists on this site and pathetically & erroneously label the GAA, the "IRA at Play" ?

    I can understand why they wouldnt bake a cake with IRA on it .. that was an illegal organisation ... but the GAA isnt illegal ...

    so now we have a situation where someones "perceptions", however wrong that may be, could be the deciding factor of whether you get served or not ....

    Its a slippery slope as far as I can see !
    I understand your point, and explicitly disagree with the notion put forward by another poster, that one should have complete rights to refuse any business on any grounds. I'd say there is a point where proposing a view edges into being a political-in the broadest sense-position. So, whereas a bigoted Unionist might consider the GAA to being an explicitly Nationalist/Ethnic organisation, the reasonable point of view would reject that, but supporting Sinn Fein (ir the DUP) would be a different matter.
    Last edited by IvoShandor; 11th October 2018 at 04:38 PM.
    "Know the white, but keep to the role of the black" -Lao Tzu

  3. #10703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Ignore what I said if you want, that's what you do anyway....
    You’re the one ignoring what you said. I’m pointing it out.
    Repeal the 27th.

  4. #10704
    Politics.ie Member talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    26,504
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    I've never said people should be allowed to refuse bespoke services based on discriminatory grounds (i.e. if they would produce the exact same product for one event but not for another).

    So, for example, you think that if I goes into a bakery and ask for a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for my Catholic wedding next week, and next month, a Jewish person goes in and orders a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for their Jewish wedding, the baker is totally justified in accepting the former order but not the latter not on the basis that he does not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant, but solely because he is not willing to cater to a Jewish wedding.

    That is the right to refuse service that you advocate. I have never said I support that. What I have supported is that a baker has, of course, a right to say that they do not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant. To that extent, of course they have a right not to provide bespoke products. But providing a product to one person, but refusing the exact same product to someone else based on the fact that it will be used in, say, a Jewish wedding, is totally unjustifiable.
    Not what you said here -

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    They sell bespoke cakes. By definition that means they do sell, as a matter of course, what was asked for.

    I don't agree with the action taken against the bakery - provision of bespoke services IMO necessarily has to include the right to refuse to provide something. Not just for religious reasons. As Cato said, if they were asked for a standard wedding cake for a civil partnership and refused that order, I think they would rightly fall foul of equality legislation but I don't think that obligation extends to having no right to refuse specific bespoke products.

  5. #10705
    Politics.ie Member Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    County Londonderry
    Posts
    35,546
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    I'd never heard of Ashers before this row. I had a look at their website, besides saying they took their name from an Israeli Tribe that was famous for skilled baking, I don't see any claim that they are a "Christian Bakery" - do they market themselves in their shops as a Christian firm? Does this mean they won't employ non-Christians? or Gays? Used to see adverts in the past specifying things like Christian Veterinary Surgeon seeks Christian Nurse - long forbidden. And of Course the lonely hearts columns used to specify religion, especially denomination. If it was known they were "Christian" then they were setting themselves up for trouble. But then the order was provocative if the man who ordered it chose Ashers because he knew it would cause trouble.

  6. #10706
    Politics.ie Member livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    22,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Not what you said here -
    Actually it is exactly what I said there. If they were asked for a standard wedding cake for a civil partnership and refused that order, I think they would rightly fall foul of equality legislation. In the same way, using the analogy I just used, if they were asked for a standard wedding cake for a jewish wedding and refused that order (where they would have fulfilled the order for a Catholic wedding), I think they would rightly fall foul of equality legislation.

    But you think they should be permitted to refuse to provide a cake for a Jewish wedding even if they would provide the exact same cake for a Catholic wedding.

  7. #10707
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    26,763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    If Ashers' policy was specifically to refuse to print messages supporting marriage equality, and if such a policy would tend to disadvantage gay people in particular, then there's a prima facie case that it constitutes indirect discrimination against gay people.
    Wrong again. They wouldn’t have won the appeal if that was true.

    And it isn’t.

    What will it take for you to accept a (unanimous) Supreme Court decision on this matter?

  8. #10708
    Politics.ie Member twokidsmanybruises's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    6,763
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    I've never said people should be allowed to refuse bespoke services based on discriminatory grounds (i.e. if they would produce the exact same product for one event but not for another).

    So, for example, you think that if I goes into a bakery and ask for a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for my Catholic wedding next week, and next month, a Jewish person goes in and orders a two tier vanilla cake, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant for their Jewish wedding, the baker is totally justified in accepting the former order but not the latter not on the basis that he does not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant, but solely because he is not willing to cater to a Jewish wedding.

    That is the right to refuse service that you advocate. I have never said I support that. What I have supported is that a baker has, of course, a right to say that they do not make two tier vanilla cakes, with lemon curd filling and lemon buttercream covered in a light yellow fondant. To that extent, of course they have a right not to provide bespoke products. But providing a product to one person, but refusing the exact same product to someone else based on the fact that it will be used in, say, a Jewish wedding, is totally unjustifiable.
    This was not the case with Ashers. Loser would be to say that the baker refuses both commissions because the baker refuses to use lemon icing on any cake, because of strongly held personal opinions.
    Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn’t go away. - Philip K. Dick

  9. #10709

    Default

    One of the most interesting aspects of this case was that the Judges in the Supreme Court in London WORE NORMAL CLOTHES.

    Could the Judges in the Supreme Court Dublin please take careful note?
    The housing shortage is the rock on which Fine Gael will truly perish.

  10. #10710
    GDPR Deleted
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This is really good and could give genuine hope to some of the people reading this thread:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •