Gay cake case - ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum

Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Gay cake case

Reply

 
 
 
Old 10 October 2018, 10:26 PM
  #1  
lozgti1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,268
Default Gay cake case

Just looking at everyone's arguments. So the cake buyer's argument is he should have what ever he wanted, however upsetting to the seller's views ?

Not coming down on either side but I think someone selling something can decide if he wants to sell something to you? I suppose if you wanted a spoiler in the shape of something totally offensive to Mr Spoiler seller he could say sod off.lol. Poor example I know, but you know what I mean

Interesting one though!

And the cake shop won.lol.In the Supreme Court so the equality commission need to pack it in now

Last edited by lozgti1; 10 October 2018 at 10:30 PM.
lozgti1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 03:58 AM
  #2  
dpb
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 45,685
Default

Can a cake be gay, in itself ?
dpb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 06:29 AM
  #3  
JDM_Stig
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
JDM_Stig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mount Weather
Posts: 5,324
Default

Only one winner here, 450k in combined legal costs . . . says it all.
JDM_Stig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 08:48 AM
  #4  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Originally Posted by lozgti1 View Post
the equality commission need to pack it in now
But they probably won't.
Even the guy who wanted the cake doesn't get it, he could have easily went to another bakery who perhaps didn't have these christian beliefs, and got his cake make.
But no, I suspect he sensed some money coming his way
To me, this was never about conscience or a statement. All I wanted to do was to order a cake in a shop
So, go to another establishment that will make the cake.

A local MP has written to the N.I home secretary requesting a review of funding - that was a waste of ink, she's useless.
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 09:09 AM
  #5  
Dr Hu
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 2,712
Default

It was just the gayer playing the 'discrimination' card..... personally agree that the Cake Baker was fully within his right to refuse - its a small personal bakery business, surely he can decide who he want s to trade with or refuse to serve?
Dr Hu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 09:14 AM
  #6  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Originally Posted by Dr Hu View Post
It was just the gayer playing the 'discrimination' card..... personally agree that the Cake Baker was fully within his right to refuse - its a small personal bakery business, surely he can decide who he want s to trade with or refuse to serve?
​​​​​​​That'll upset a few
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 10:22 AM
  #7  
hackisfun
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Newtownards - Northern Ireland
Posts: 138
Default

Being from northern Ireland myself we have had a lot of local media coverage on this.
The issue arose that someone at Ashers took the order with full knowledge of the cake and message wanted, then the owners rang a few days later stated they were unwilling to do the cake due to the message on the cake that had already been paid for.

Any business is within their right to refuse to serve/sell someone something without reason, the controversy comes by revoking the order due to a message.

The long and short of the case is that the "law" is open to interpretation and that different people in different areas and/or places of power will have different understanding.
hackisfun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 10:31 AM
  #8  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Mr Lee could have easily accepted that they were unwilling to proceed, got his money back and fcuked off to some other cake shop that couldn't give a monkeys about gay marriage.
But no, he stamped his gay feet and made a mountain out of it, and now here we are, 4 years later, and 450K down the drain.
I bet its not the last we hear of equality commission on this, or the gay rights activist himself.
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:10 AM
  #9  
dpb
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 45,685
Default

Originally Posted by JDM_Stig View Post
Only one winner here, 450k in combined legal costs . . . says it all.
having their cake , and eating it too
dpb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:24 AM
  #10  
dpb
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 45,685
Default

Originally Posted by hackisfun View Post
Being from northern Ireland myself we have had a lot of local media coverage on this.
The issue arose that someone at Ashers took the order with full knowledge of the cake and message wanted, then the owners rang a few days later stated they were unwilling to do the cake due to the message on the cake that had already been paid for.

Any business is within their right to refuse to serve/sell someone something without reason, the controversy comes by revoking the order due to a message.

The long and short of the case is that the "law" is open to interpretation and that different people in different areas and/or places of power will have different understanding.
its kind of specific to NI and backward society is it not

dpb is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:33 AM
  #11  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Originally Posted by dpb View Post
its kind of specific to NI and backward society is it not
No, not really.
Its not about yer man being gay, its about them not agreeing with the gay marriage message, due to their religious beliefs
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:42 AM
  #12  
Dr Hu
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 2,712
Default

Originally Posted by urban View Post
That'll upset a few

Apparently this bloke describes himself as a' Gay Rights Activist' - I know just the sort
Dr Hu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 01:13 PM
  #13  
ALi-B
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 36,643
Default

I reserve the right to refuse to work on cars because of my personal beliefs regardless of if the owner is a gayer or not.

That includes Range rovers, land rovers and four-wheeled bio-hazards (interior smells like sh*t, p*ss or God knows what).



​​​​​​​
ALi-B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 01:38 PM
  #14  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

I know a mechanic that discovered many dirty nappies in the car, under the seats, in the boot.
In fact he sent me pictures, and you could see they were loaded with shyte. What sort of a person does that?
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 01:44 PM
  #15  
markjmd
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,771
Default

Originally Posted by hackisfun View Post
Being from northern Ireland myself we have had a lot of local media coverage on this.
The issue arose that someone at Ashers took the order with full knowledge of the cake and message wanted, then the owners rang a few days later stated they were unwilling to do the cake due to the message on the cake that had already been paid for.

Any business is within their right to refuse to serve/sell someone something without reason, the controversy comes by revoking the order due to a message.

The long and short of the case is that the "law" is open to interpretation and that different people in different areas and/or places of power will have different understanding.
If we're going to picky, what the Supreme Court ruling actually proves is that the facts of a case are sometimes open to interpretation, not the Law as such. In this particular case, it should have been clear that the customer wasn't being refused service on the basis of who they are (which would be against the law), but on the basis of what they were asking for (which isn't).
The truly astonishing thing is that the lower court somehow failed to notice or make that distinction, but then again nobody's perfect (especially not even lawyers ).

Last edited by markjmd; 11 October 2018 at 01:46 PM.
markjmd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 03:40 PM
  #16  
BMWhere?
Scooby Senior
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Friedrichshafen Germany/Preston UK
Posts: 1,881
Default

Originally Posted by markjmd View Post
it should have been clear that the customer wasn't being refused service on the basis of who they are (which would be against the law), but on the basis of what they were asking for (which isn't).
This seems like a fair point. If a company refused to sell you a perfectly nice cake because you were gay or coloured or whatever then that would certainly seem wrong.
However if you're ordering a custom cake design/message that the company are not willing to actually make (for whatever reason), then they should be completely entitled to refuse the order.

The question is, if the gay couple had just ordered a standard nice wedding cake, would the owners have still refused to supply a cake to a gay couple. i.e. are they now using the cake design as an excuse to get away with the fact they were simply unwilling to supply a gay couple?

I can't be doing with over the top political correctness and jobsworths, but at the same time intolerance in any form is also a nasty thing. This case really seems to tread a fine line between the balance of political correctness and intolerance.

You could say the gays could of gone elsewhere for the cake, but you could also say the company could suck it in and just take the money and make the cake - which one of them is the bigger snowflake!
BMWhere? is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 04:54 PM
  #17  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Originally Posted by BMWhere? View Post
The question is, if the gay couple had just ordered a standard nice wedding cake, would the owners have still refused to supply a cake to a gay couple.
They have previously stated that being gay was not the problem, and would have made a cake, just not with the requested message.

These guys - WTF
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579136.html
In a statement Tony Xu, the founder of the booking site, said: “We appreciate that this looks like tit for tat, and it is.”

Last edited by urban; 11 October 2018 at 05:00 PM.
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 08:12 PM
  #18  
markjmd
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,771
Default

Originally Posted by BMWhere? View Post
This seems like a fair point. If a company refused to sell you a perfectly nice cake because you were gay or coloured or whatever then that would certainly seem wrong.
However if you're ordering a custom cake design/message that the company are not willing to actually make (for whatever reason), then they should be completely entitled to refuse the order.

The question is, if the gay couple had just ordered a standard nice wedding cake, would the owners have still refused to supply a cake to a gay couple. i.e. are they now using the cake design as an excuse to get away with the fact they were simply unwilling to supply a gay couple?
At least one of the couple was a regular customers of the same bakery, prior to the order which provoked the case, and the bakers have said he's welcome back there any time.

markjmd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 08:45 PM
  #19  
hodgy0_2
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K
Posts: 15,536
Default

Originally Posted by markjmd View Post
If we're going to picky, what the Supreme Court ruling actually proves is that the facts of a case are sometimes open to interpretation, not the Law as such. In this particular case, it should have been clear that the customer wasn't being refused service on the basis of who they are (which would be against the law), but on the basis of what they were asking for (which isn't).
The truly astonishing thing is that the lower court somehow failed to notice or make that distinction, but then again nobody's perfect (especially not even lawyers ).
Originally Posted by BMWhere? View Post
This seems like a fair point. If a company refused to sell you a perfectly nice cake because you were gay or coloured or whatever then that would certainly seem wrong.
However if you're ordering a custom cake design/message that the company are not willing to actually make (for whatever reason), then they should be completely entitled to refuse the order.

The question is, if the gay couple had just ordered a standard nice wedding cake, would the owners have still refused to supply a cake to a gay couple. i.e. are they now using the cake design as an excuse to get away with the fact they were simply unwilling to supply a gay couple?

I can't be doing with over the top political correctness and jobsworths, but at the same time intolerance in any form is also a nasty thing. This case really seems to tread a fine line between the balance of political correctness and intolerance.

You could say the gays could of gone elsewhere for the cake, but you could also say the company could suck it in and just take the money and make the cake - which one of them is the bigger snowflake!
100% agree with both posts - this seems the nub of it, it is the" Idea" not the people/person
hodgy0_2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 10:09 PM
  #20  
lozgti1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,268
Default

Originally Posted by dpb View Post
Can a cake be gay, in itself ?
lol. Yes badly phrased but think that's how the press are describing it
lozgti1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 10:11 PM
  #21  
lozgti1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,268
Default

Originally Posted by urban View Post
They have previously stated that being gay was not the problem, and would have made a cake, just not with the requested message.

These guys - WTF
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579136.html
love the tit for tat quote. Ace.lol
lozgti1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:05 PM
  #22  
An0n0m0us
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,421
Default

Common sense prevailed for once. It was nothing to do with serving the customer and all to do with the business refusing to make a product which they are perfectly within their right to do. As pointed out how the lower courts failed to see this point is shocking. The idiot who brought about the case is an utter tool.

Last edited by An0n0m0us; 11 October 2018 at 11:06 PM.
An0n0m0us is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2018, 11:38 PM
  #23  
ALi-B
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 36,643
Default

Originally Posted by An0n0m0us View Post
Common sense prevailed for once. It was nothing to do with serving the customer and all to do with the business refusing to make a product which they are perfectly within their right to do. As pointed out how the lower courts failed to see this point is shocking. The idiot who brought about the case is an utter tool.
As pointed out and according to local hearsay it was local knowledge that the shop owners were rigid in their beliefs. And as such the 'victim' (activist) may have intentionally targeted them as part of their campaign. If so, shame on them, and good that its backfired. Pity they didn't foot the legal bill or be liable to personal damages to the owners who have had their time wasted, business damaged, psychological trauma and being victim of hostility by more aggressive activists brought on by a difficult customer that is being a tit, that probably did it with intent.

No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.

ALi-B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12 October 2018, 08:43 AM
  #24  
Dr Hu
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 2,712
Default

Originally Posted by ALi-B View Post
As pointed out and according to local hearsay it was local knowledge that the shop owners were rigid in their beliefs. And as such the 'victim' (activist) may have intentionally targeted them as part of their campaign. If so, shame on them, and good that its backfired. Pity they didn't foot the legal bill or be liable to personal damages to the owners who have had their time wasted, business damaged, psychological trauma and being victim of hostility by more aggressive activists brought on by a difficult customer that is being a tit, that probably did it with intent.

No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.
^^^^ 100% this! - I have thought for a while that I reckon it was done on purpose as a 'test' by the self proclaimed 'Activist'..... and you have cemented that thought even further Ali-B
Dr Hu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12 October 2018, 08:46 AM
  #25  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,339
Default

Originally Posted by Dr Hu View Post
^^^^ 100% this! - I have thought for a while that I reckon it was done on purpose as a 'test' by the self proclaimed 'Activist'..... and you have cemented that thought even further Ali-B
It probably is true, if you wanted the cake that much, you'd have simply went elsewhere and got some other bakery to make it
urban is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12 October 2018, 09:33 AM
  #26  
An0n0m0us
Scooby Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,421
Default

Originally Posted by ALi-B View Post
As pointed out and according to local hearsay it was local knowledge that the shop owners were rigid in their beliefs. And as such the 'victim' (activist) may have intentionally targeted them as part of their campaign. If so, shame on them, and good that its backfired. Pity they didn't foot the legal bill or be liable to personal damages to the owners who have had their time wasted, business damaged, psychological trauma and being victim of hostility by more aggressive activists brought on by a difficult customer that is being a tit, that probably did it with intent.

No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.
I hadn't thought about the deliberate target angle but yes makes perfect sense. And yes they should have had to pay the legal costs!
An0n0m0us is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
 
 
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hoskib
Photography
6
09 February 2009 06:21 PM
Scooby Roo
Non Scooby Related
22
02 October 2006 07:14 AM
The Bubbanator
The Muppet Room
41
31 March 2006 08:53 AM
imatrukahs
The Muppet Room
31
04 December 2002 12:41 PM

Forum Jump

Thread Tools
Search this Thread