[arista]

https://news.sky.com/story/christian...fight-11522566





The Bakers win at the High Court today.


[Delivering the ruling, Supreme Court president Lady Hale said
the couple did not refuse to make the cake because of Mr Lee's sexual orientation.
She said: "Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee
or anyone else with whom he was associated.]

[Headie]

Oh dear

[Livia]

I have to support that.

The rights of gay people are not more important that someone's right to freedom of religion. They are equally as important. And this couple didn't refuse to make them a cake, they refused to make them a cake that said "support gay marriage".

Forcing this couple of make a cake with a message that did not sit with their religion would be like me owning a bookshop. refusing to stock a book that said the holocaust was a myth, and being taken to court for it.

[MB.]

Cake is an inherently queer construct so this is homophobic!

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have to support that.

The rights of gay people are not more important that someone's right to freedom of religion. They are equally as important. And this couple didn't refuse to make them a cake, they refused to make them a cake that said "support gay marriage".

Forcing this couple of make a cake with a message that did not sit with their religion would be like me owning a bookshop. refusing to stock a book that said the holocaust was a myth, and being taken to court for it.

I see you and Coleen Nolan have both been to the School of Melodramatic Gay Cake Analogies...

(the difference being that there's factual evidence that the Holocaust happened, whereas the Christian attitude towards same-sex marriage is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Not to mention being seen as endorsing one is considerably worse than being seen as endorsing the other, which I would hope would be self-explanatory no matter your religious views)

(also cake is an inherently queer construct so this is homophobic)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MB.

I see you and Coleen Nolan have both been to the School of Melodramatic Gay Cake Analogies...

(the difference being that there's factual evidence that the Holocaust happened, whereas the Christian attitude towards same-sex marriage is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Not to mention being seen as endorsing one is considerably worse than being seen as endorsing the other, which I would hope would be self-explanatory no matter your religious views)

(also cake is an inherently queer construct so this is homophobic)

Well, the high court seems to agree with me. Gay rights are not more important that religious freedom. They are equal.

.

[Oliver_W]

I don't understand why the spoilt little brats would even take it to the courts. Just go to a different bakery, princess.

[LeatherTrumpet]

A victory against a pair of self important twits

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

A victory against a pair of self important twits

Agree with this, they did not object to baking the cake, they objected to the message on it, pretty sure they would have also objected if had said 'fcuk the pope' or similar and no one would have an issue

[Liam-]

Good, I’m tired of militant gays thinking they have more right to freedom than anyone else in the world, the irony is it’s probably cost a fortune in legal fees when all they had to do was find a bakery who was willing to do it for them.

[Marsh.]

I'm still confused why they wanted a cake like that?

Like, I assumed they wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding. What's the purpose of a "support gay marriage" cake? Luring Homophobes with sugary treats?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Agree with this, they did not object to baking the cake, they objected to the message on it, pretty sure they would have also objected if had said 'fcuk the pope' or similar and no one would have an issue

Yup. I agree with the judgement for this reason. Obviously if it had been a case of refusing to serve someone simply because they were gay, it would be different, IMO.

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.o...of-expression/

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

“Businesses can now lawfully refuse a customer’s request to emblazon a political message if they have a conscientious objection to it. This includes the right to refuse messages that are sexist, xenophobic or anti-gay, which is a good thing.

“Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

“The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.

“Ashers did not discriminate against the customer, Gareth Lee, because he was gay. They objected to the message he wanted on the cake: Support gay marriage.’

“Discrimination against LGBT people is wrong. But in a free society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas that they disagree with. I am glad the court upheld this important liberal principle.

“If the original judgement against Ashers had been upheld it would have meant that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be forced to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial. It could have also encouraged far right extremists to demand that bakers and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim opinions.

“That would have set a dangerous, authoritarian precedent that could have been open to serious abuse.

“Discrimination against people should be illegal but not discrimination against ideas and opinions,” said Mr Tatchell.

[Withano]

What was the message on the cake?

Bit hard to judge without that info

[Withano]

Oh i thought that picture was a joke lol

I dont know why the bakers were offended by the message on that cake? Seems super snowflakey.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh i thought that picture was a joke lol

I dont know why the bakers were offended by the message on that cake? Seems super snowflakey.

Don't think it's necessarily offence. They don't support gay marriage so don't wish to offer their sevices in the promotion of it?

[Marsh.]

Still baffled by the purpose of a cake like that.

It would be like getting a cake with anti-immigrant slogans. Why would you want a cake with these opinions on?

Almost as though they asked them to make that cake after knowing their views on it and in order to kick up a stink.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Don't think it's necessarily offence. They don't support gay marriage so don't wish to offer their sevices in the promotion of it?

Stubbornness?
Closed mindedness?
Not caring for the beliefs of others?
Still might just be offence

I can see why they wasnt sued, I just think the bakers must be very sad individuals lol.

[thesheriff443]

They could of got a plain cake and wrote their message on it!

God I’m good, lol

[Ammi]

......it’s sad that they don’t support the legal union of people who love each other, regardless of sexuality..I don’t support their ‘christianity’...

[armand.kay]

I cant say I'm surprised by this result if that was the message in the cake. This whole time I was under the impression that the couple had just wanted a wedding cake and the shop refused, because thats pretty bad. However a cake that says "support gay marriage" is inherently political and if the business doesn't want to align themselves with the specific beliefs then they have every right to refuse service. I also cant understand why the couple wouldn't support a queer owned business rather than fighting to give your money to a business that doesn't support you? Their best move would've been to let everyone know what this business stands for and urgh people not to support them, I guess they did that with this but were the legal fees worth it lol

[joeysteele]

I think I come down myself against the Bakers.

2 lower courts have upheld the customer argument, this one hasn't.

I agree, best not to waste so much money making a bigger issue of it.
However this dinosaur attitude of the Bakers doesn't warrant them being in business.

Just never use them again.
Then tell all you come in contact with about their bigotry, that would have been a good way for this couple to proceed.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Stubbornness?
Closed mindedness?
Not caring for the beliefs of others?
Still might just be offence

I can see why they wasnt sued, I just think the bakers must be very sad individuals lol.

I imagine not many people would promote a political idea they did not agree with.

[Headie]

[Redway]

Have to agree with Livia.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Hayden

They're businesses ran by people. People who have their own opinion, and should be able to use their time and resources as they see fit.