Gay cake case
10 October 2018, 10:26 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
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
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.
11 October 2018, 08:48 AM
#4
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
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.
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
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.
11 October 2018, 09:09 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
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?
11 October 2018, 10:22 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Newtownards - Northern Ireland
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Trending Topics
11 October 2018, 10:31 AM
#8
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.
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.
11 October 2018, 11:24 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
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.
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.
11 October 2018, 01:13 PM
#13
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).
That includes Range rovers, land rovers and four-wheeled bio-hazards (interior smells like sh*t, p*ss or God knows what).
11 October 2018, 01:44 PM
#15
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.
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.
The truly astonishing thing is that the lower court somehow failed to notice or make that distinction, but then again nobody's perfect (
).
Last edited by markjmd; 11 October 2018 at 01:46 PM.
11 October 2018, 03:40 PM
#16
Scooby Senior
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!
11 October 2018, 04:54 PM
#17
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.
11 October 2018, 08:12 PM
#18
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?
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?
11 October 2018, 08:45 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
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 ).
The truly astonishing thing is that the lower court somehow failed to notice or make that distinction, but then again nobody's perfect (
).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!
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!
11 October 2018, 10:09 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
11 October 2018, 10:11 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
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
These guys - WTF
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579136.html
11 October 2018, 11:05 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
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.
11 October 2018, 11:38 PM
#23
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.
No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.
12 October 2018, 08:43 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
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.
No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.
12 October 2018, 09:33 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
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.
No worker, or business owner should be forced to do something they do not want to do. The customer is NOT always right.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post