Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what do you think about that then?
and is 24.
but all the signs were there now thinking back.
carpetbomb the motherfuckers
i meant.... mailbomb
i thought even for you carpet bombing was a little extreme
regardless of how unfair/illogical it might be to the business owners*
*like, if i ran a cake shop, and someone wanted a 'marckee is the best' cake, i would tell them to absolutely fuck off and be pretty annoyed if marckee sued me, but life's a bit unfair innit.
like those b&b twats, they refused to do the design, which you can understand if not support.
still, fuck em
if you run a business you've got to be an adult and abide by the rules.
it shouldn't matter than this is a frivolous case like cake-making.
if it had been a cake with a picture of, say, an interracial couple on it, I can't see people say "well you can understand it, they should be able to run their business as they see fit."
yeah that's different to an unequivocally political cake, that says "support gay marriage"
must be loads of design twats here, what would you do if someone asked for a "support nick griffin" thing?
lol political cake
Imagine it was *any* kind of political cake. Like an anti-inheritance tax cake. Or a pro Iraq war cake. Can sympathise with a small company refusing to put out a statement they were opposed to. Doesn't make them not twats, just makes them sympathetic twats.
as I don't think there's any law that says you have to conform to your clients wishes at all times. It's morally repugnant but I don't think there's anything legally that can be done about it.
you'd hope, anyway.
Like a wedding cake with two grooms on would be even greyer here. or a bit less grey. you know what I mean.
The general manager added that it was not the first time his company had refused customers' cake orders.
"In the past, we've declined several orders which have contained pornographic images and offensive, foul language."
because they seem to be equating the one with the other(s)
not... Bert and Ernie
Why are people so stupid.
Just lie and say you were worried about breaking copyright on bert and ernie rather than you hate gays
Quite rare for someone to make a decision like this and then come out and publicly talk about it, with posed photographs. Northern Ireland, eh?
first the "wop" thread and now this?
how about "in order to highlight an important issue"
Just trying to get a reaction ain't they.
aside from anything else, I wonder how this is "so obvious"?
strongly suspect/obvious/possible whatever it was just a comment.
Don't make a comment like that then play the victim and get defensive when people ask you what you meant.
it's very unusual to put a political campaign message on a cake or indeed to ask a presumably well known christian run bakery to make it for you. i can only think that it would be much more useful for the campaign if the bakery refused to make it than it would be if they had a cake with "support gay marriage" written on it. it's a good idea.
this has nothing to do with whether or not I think the bakery has the right to refuse to bake it or whether to do so is morally justified.
Originally the story read like it was just a wedding cake, to me. Didn't see the actual message. You're probably right tbf. Not that there's anything wrong with showing bigots up for being bigots. But yeah, may well be what happened. Especially as the article says he's an activist.
But it's a Bert and Ernie cake. It's not a 10-guy custard-pool blowjob frenzy.
You can't get much more innocent than sesame street.
I'm not saying I disagree with it for a second, but the statement on the cake is a political one, especially in country which hasn't legalised Same Sex Marriage.
Saying a law should change is not in any equal to breaking it. It's not even a reactionary message - it's asking for support.
But I don't see how refusing to print a design with a slogan on equates to breaking equality legislation. They weren't refused servive because they were gay, which was the key point in that B and B case a few years ago, but because of the design.
Totally agree that they should be called out for being bigots etc, just think Smee has been jumped on for making a comment that isn't particularly "out there" or intolerant.
by how delightfully he reacted =D
I've drivelled a bit downthread about the other stuff
you were all just hoping that I'd be encouraged to say something bigoted so you could have a most enthusiastic lyncher competition.
(in this thread :D)
Have you had a stroke?
it did cross my mind whilst looking at some of the more risqué cakes
You've got me on the racist thing, admittedly, but check out my dis posting record on this issues I think you'll find me to be as progressive as they come. I can just spot a political campaign when I see one that's all.
smee caught the gays cheating or something so they're not allowed cake any more
the bakers sounds like proper tools obviously, but, although it's splitting hairs slightly, the order wasn't technically refused because of the customers sexual orientation.
The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".
In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
but they refused it because of the design of the cake not because the people who had ordered it were gay. If that had been the case they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
was the gay part, and they've acknowledged that publicly.
which legally, as far I know, is the only part of this case that could be appealed on the grounds of discrimination.
I don't think there's any legal framework governing what kinds work are accepted or declined only who the work is original accepted from.
because the bakers are tiresome bigots, but I can't see the legal difference between them refusing this and refusing to bake a cake which says something like "vote tory" or "scrap the union" or whatever.
I don't think there is a difference my point is literally just that they can do the former or the latter without justification and there's nothing, legally that could be done about it.
as opposed to bigot reasons
they've chosen to make a stand over the gay issue.
because they're idiots as well as bigots.
The shop COULD HAVE legitiately refused for these reasons. Yet it didn't, eejit bigots.
(I've obviously not read the article, nor will i do so probably.)
I was supporting alcxxk's proposition that the shop could potentially refuse to do it for copyright infringement reasonsas opposed to bigot reasons. the fact they didn't is irrelevant. They could have.
I don't think alcxxk is saying 'maybe that's why they did' so much as 'they're pretty stupid not to have gone down that route'.
I don't see where my post disagrees with that?
I wasn't disputing that with Alcxxck, just saying that although - indeed! - they could have done this, they went ahead and explicitly stated that they were bothered by the gay issue, instead.
'You' may not like it, but don't see the problem here.
I'm almost tempted to delete this to spare you the embarrassment.
why do people only ever talk about what the law says, in these kind of threads. such a bunch of sheeple
existential void of nothingness we inhabit.
presumably they only make wedding cakes for people who haven't slept together before they got married, or haven't remarried following a divorce. It gets kinda complicated when you try to impose your morals on others.
would a Christian owner insist on unmarried couples staying in twin rooms or two singles?
"Mrs Wilkinson says she will have to shut her business if forced to allow unmarried couples to sleep in the same bed and insists she is in no way anti-gay and that her "old fashioned" beliefs have not been afforded the respect they deserve."
between making an explicitly pro-gay cake and serving a gay customer. so yeah, maybe they would refuse to make a cake that said "WE HAD SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" on it too.
You just don't know, know
How I I
I like it down low
And I just want you to know
That I think our love will grow
Will take it step by step
Because I'm not something you own
Now that song will be in my stupid head all day.
oh you beat me
the chorus is really nasal when you listen to it now
but by me, I don't think he meant through him the individual 'Jesus' i.e. becoming a christian, I think he meant it's achieved by becoming a being that is both human and divine, where your spirit, soul and human body are aligned as his was. So I think too many Christians focus on following the 'rules' even when it feels wrong. You can't get to heaven just by following the rules, you have to let your soul experience the life it chose.
So I think it depends, if the McArthurs feel obliged to follow certain rules to 'please' God, or because that's what the Bible teaches, then I think they've got it wrong. They have to look inwards and think about the way to act that is not just 'Godly' (biblical), but true to their humanity as well as spirit and soul, as Jesus did. And that may not be a question of bake the cake or don't bake the cake, it may be something else entirely.
as a potential Creakykness sockpuppet, but there you go
at telling people what "he" "wants"?
Sounds like a bit of a chump if you ask me.
not 'Jesus' as such
dude, this is some pretty poorly-rehearsed baiting
ffs. Anyway, Jesus' ministry didn't really get going til he was about 30.
its a fable, or allegory, if you will...
More like Christians are massively inept at interpreting what's blatantly clear. E.g. love is clearly marked both as the greatest commandment and the greatest gift.
being omnipotent and all.
but hey, who am I to judge.
someone who doesn't believe in Jesus could spend their entire life being loving to all their neighbours but still gets sent to hell, to suffer for eternity.
I am a universalist, I believe we'll all be saved :)
what were we "saved" from?
am I being trolled here?
so I can only really talk about my own theories. And I do see the atonement as something real. It's hard to explain it to someone who believes that we are just the physical because you'll think I'm saying that the story of Jesus is a metaphor but I'm not I'm saying it's real but the 'saving' didn't happen in the physical world, to human life - I think the atonement is when the supernatural part of us became free (and this is connected to our human life).
before you incorporate it into any theory you have.
What you believe is in direct contradiction to several founding premises that all Christians would have to believe to even call themselves that, even the batshit ones.
The bible said happened isn't true, I just don't think there's anyway that we can ever know that for sure, so it shouldn't be the focus of the message.
Some Christians would say I don't qualify but it's not their decision. But I don't call myself a Christian even though most of the premises do resonate with me because I think that is a big part of the Jesus thing - freedom from the law, we're 'saved' because by dying Jesus stopped us from having to follow the law to know right and wrong and infused it into our conscience.
And through him we can recognise that we are too
was it to save us?
or bring the 2nd covenant?
By the Jesus story. And those are both names for a supernatural event that can't be fully understood through the brain only.
(I'm just theorising really, I suppose you'd have to work with it and not against it if you wanted to be touched/moved/inspired)
work out something that "..cannot be understood with the brain only"
only a 'brainist' who is only prepared to use his brain would find that funny :D
I feel the same way as you in this sub thread, and I'm sure that there are others who also do too.
But its really lovely to see someone else saying it.
And Im not just saying that cos I <3 you.........I mean, I suppose I should try to find it in my heart to love the likes of fidel too......it just that he makes it so difficult :D
If the cake order is refused then could it still be claimed as a case of descrimination based on sexual orientation?
and I guess might actually have to be hammered out in court.
Imo they'd still be likely to get slapped for it, because it seems like such a weasel way to get around not serving people because of their sexual orientation in many cases.
...is the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.
The relevant regulation states that "[i]t is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision ... of goods, facilities or services to the public ... to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services ... by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them."
In these circumstances, according to the legislation, a person "discriminates" against another if he treats that person less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons on the grounds of that person's orientation.
In other words, if the baker would have refused to bake the same cake for a straight person, then he has not acted unlawfully. If we take the baker at his word, the facts of this case can be distinguished from the facts of the B&B type cases since the baker's refusal to provide the service is because of the message he is asked to include and not because of the orientation of the person asking. Proving that in court is obviously another matter.
objecting to an unmarried couple sleeping together rather than a gay couple.
But she lost. The court found that she did discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Her case was probably not helped by the fact that she told the couple that "it is against my convictions for two men to share a bed".
If her objection were truly to the customers being unmarried then it would not have been direct discrimination. Interestingly, it may still have been unlawful indirect discrimination (because gay people could not marry at the time).
Given they could have just refused to bake the cake on copyright grounds or something, but have explicitly said they did so as it was against what the Bible teaches instead.
The court found that the B&B owner discriminated on grounds of sexual orientation (i.e. her contention that she didn't let straight unmarried couples stay was a lie).
If the baker can show that he would have refused to bake a cake with the same message for a straight person, then he has not discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation as his refusal is down to the message and not the identity of the person.
Whether his beliefs come from the bible is neither here nor there for the purposes of determining whether he acted unlawfully.
As you say, the court found that to be a lie, they might also take the bakers' words to be a lie.
Which is why I have caveated everything I said with "if we take the baker at his word" and why I said "Proving that in court is another matter".
In any event, if we'd taken the B&B owner at her word then she would actually have been guilty of indirect discrimination, so the cases still wouldn't be comparable.
So the main difference between the cases is that one's already been heard and one hasn't? That's kind of obvious. I was just drawing out the broad parallels so far and I think there are a lot of similarities.
I don't think indirect discrimination would ever have been upheld in the B&B case, but I agree that is an area of distinction.
The main difference is that the supposed justifications for the refusal of service are completely different.
The baker claims he refused service solely because he disapproved of the message (definitely not discrimination) rather than because of the identity of the customer (potentially discrimination, depending on which aspect of the customer's identity led to the refusal of service).
In the B&B case the refusal was indisputably down to the identity of the customers, whether that be due to them being unmarried (indirect discrimination) or due to them being gay (direct discrimination).
If it turns out that the court finds the baker is lying and that he did discriminate on grounds of orientation then, yes, he will be guilty of direct discrimination just as the B&B owner was.
Incidentally, the judgment in the B&B appeal says explicitly that the court would have found that indirect discrimination had occurred if that had been relevant (i.e. if Mrs Wilkinson wasn't lying), so I have no idea why you would think otherwise.
who found direct discrimination hadn't occurred would have found that indirect discrimination had, but maybe I'm being too cynical.
Anyway, sorry you found explaining yourself so tedious. Sometimes it's good to discuss important matters and tease out some of the distinctions in similar cases.
I meant my ensuing explanation was tedious.
You are being too cynical, though. The appeal court explicitly said it would have found indirect discrimination (even though it didn't have to). It was setting a precedent that it is not ok to discriminate against gay people on some spurious "but I discriminate against everyone living in sin" line.
My understanding was that indirect discrimination was relevant due to gay marriage not being legal then though? How would the same issue play out now or, perhaps more interestingly, had the original couple been an unmarried heterosexual couple? Presumably sex before marriage is not considered a "sexual orientation" as per the legislation?
[I’m not trolling you here, genuinely think this is an interesting precedent and is at least partly relevant to the cake case. Feel free to ignore if you’ve had enough!]
The court's finding on indirect discrimination in the B&B case might play out differently as gay people can marry now. That said, this wouldn't change the finding of direct discrimination so the net result would be the same.
Had the original couple been an unmarried heterosexual couple, the situation would have been different as being unmarried is not a protected characteristic in itself.
The B&B case isn't actually much use as a legal precedent in the cake case in any event as they are based on different - albeit similar - statues (one being English, the other Northern Irish) and will be heard by courts in different jurisdictions.
Kind of bizarre. I guess they'd have just been off to Watchdog or something...
Interestingly, being marriage is a protected characteristic. So in the hypothetical and unlikely circumstance that a B&B operator prohibited married couples sharing a room (for whatever reason), that would be discrimination.
That said, I think the laws as they are actually get the balance just about right.
yeah I thought that was the interesting bit about it. if a gay couple had asked for a birthday cake they'd presumably make it no problem. but if anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, requests something political, do they still have the right to refuse to make it?
say you refuse to make a weeding cake with two grooms on top. or you're a print shop and refuse to make, idk, a banner saying "congratulations on your wedding Adam and Steve."
Regardless of who is ordering this - Adam, or his straight-as-a-die brother Crispin - you're still preventing gay people from being served; so I feel the spirit of the law suggests this isn't on?
or if you run a printing shop can you refuse to print a load of fliers that were against gay marriage? presumably you can
when it comes to political campaigns.
it's the interesting difference between that and refusing to print wedding invites with two same-gender names that'd need to be teased out, I guess
is focused solely on the protected characteristics of the potential customer and not on the message the supplier is asked to print/bake etc.
don't remember the chorus being so nasal on this :(
was because some god-botherers wouldn't make you a cake.
to try and make the worst post in this thread
with your twiglet like head
is whichever chump unbanned you
Some people what I know got a right posh cake company to make them a cake decorated with pictures of Fritzl, no problem. Can't remember all the details. It was nothing to do with me though so don't judge.
'OMG I SAID PRETZEL, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE'
What was all that when the gay marriage law passed about 'nobody being forced to do anything they didn't believe in'? When's the first lawsuit against a church, then?
you are massively fucking tedious
of businesses 'not being forced to do anything they don't believe in'. If you set up as a business, you have to adhere to equality laws. And have done for quite a long time.
Doesn't that set a bit of a worrying precedent? Should having conservative Christian views preclude you from running a cake shop, of all things? I want these ideologies to die out just as much as you do but I seriously don't like the idea of taking people to court because of their beliefs. It's not even as though they *acted* on a belief, they just chose to do nothing. I also don't think the road to tolerance is punishing people for things like this, unless you want a forced tolerance of policed thought.
"Should having conservative Christian views preclude you from running a cake shop, of all things?" was probably my favourite from the above, btw
by gay people not being allowed a cake they've ordered because they're gay, personally.
That's a much more worrying precedent to me.
When's your next performance review with CG? You might need to retake Trolling 101.
(batting number 9)
on the bottom of the cake in icing, or even better in one of the layers which is revealed when you cut it open. Missed a trick really.
In know where he's coming from. Why in the name of the wee man would you- out of all of the bakeries in Co. Antrim, go to one that is run by godbotheres when you probably have reason to suspect that it will get a reaction of some sort.
Of course, I'm glad they did, and I hope the sbakers are held to account the couple were blisssfully unaware that they were lighting the blue touchpaper.
I can't imagine it being a coincidence
if it was a personal cake addressed to a loved one or a birthday cake or something. i'm finding it much harder to imagine what a gay rights activist was planning to do with a small cake that could have got anywhere near this much impact.
doesn't rule anything in or out
*runs away crying*
just asking for a cake and not checking the background of the shop. I wouldn't.
I don't usually ask whether or not they run a Christian business before I request something. It's pretty easy to believe they just called the first one they found on Google.
it is about the wider sociological ramifications of the denial.
No blacks, no gays, no Irish wasn't damaging because they had to go to a different hotel, but because of the affect that such a sign had on the acceptability of cultural discourse, arguably.
they disagreed with the message rather than the sexuality it appears. Gay marriage isn't even legal in Northern Ireland. So it is no different to them refusing to make a cake about some nationalist / unionist topic which they disagree with.
Did I see someone say that they're getting a 'marckee is the best' cake made up?
That's lovely, that. It's really made my day.
"The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
The values of the Carphone Warehouse...
have any values other than to sell phones and make money. Clearly this place does have values outside selling cakes, however weird and misguided they are.
What is its mission statement?
The company is run according to 'Five Fundamental Rules'. These are as follows:
"If we don't look after the customer, someone else will.
Nothing is gained by winning an argument but losing a customer.
Always deliver what we promise. If in doubt, under-promise and over-deliver.
Always treat customers as we ourselves would like to be treated.
The reputation of the whole company is in the hands of each individual."
Source: Carphone Warehouse Web site
"It was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs"
so I guess it doesn't really answer the question of whether you are allowed to discriminate based solely on political beliefs.
I don't normally like wondering about fictional "what next?" scenarios but surely a bakery doesn't have to bake a cake if they don't personally agree with the message on it? If they refuse to hand over a sticky bun to a gay man because they are gay - discrimination. Not baking a cake with Bert and Ernie on it - not discrimination. IMO.
all bakers to be forced into gay marriages by the EU, I'd imagine
can't say I agree with that.
if someone wanted a cake with 'marriage = one man + one woman' written on it, I'd like to be able to tell them to fuck off.
It usually escalates to equating gay marriage with the holocaust.
They don't have to run a bakery which provides such a service.