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

Can a cake be gay, in itself ?

Only one winner here, 450k in combined legal costs . . . says it all.

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.

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 :D

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.

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.

having their cake , and eating it too :)

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

;)
Apparently this bloke describes himself as a' Gay Rights Activist' - I know just the sort :rolleyes:

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?

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 :lol1:).

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!

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

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.

100% agree with both posts - this seems the nub of it, it is the" Idea" not the people/person

lol. Yes badly phrased but think that's how the press are describing it

love the tit for tat quote. Ace.lol

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.

^^^^ 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 :thumb:

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

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!