Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9236994)

Isnt that the point though, if you took someone who traumatised you to court, youd expect to leave in a way that would alleviate your traumatic experience. You, I and this couple can find solitude in 100k+. The traumatic experience just became a neutral, or positive one.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237001)

OTT though surely. I would have any trauma experienced alleviated by like 1k, or even a hundred. Hell maybe less :laugh:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237001)

OTT though surely. I would have any trauma experienced alleviated by like 1k, or even a hundred. Hell maybe less :laugh:

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237033)

Yeah, but if you felt traumatised to go through the legal process, you'd still willingly take the 135k! Or any figure that the judge deemed fair based on your personal experience.. Im sure the couple wasnt expecting so much money either tbf, but its not like they (or anyone else in their shoes) would turn around and be like 'oh no, we only need about a quarter of that'.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237034)

Oh no, I don't blame them at all. Good on them, will be able to get a nice house (if they don't have one already) or at least be very comfortable for a while.

I blame the ridiculous judges :laugh:

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237038)

I worked out that its actually the equivalent to £51k each, which doesnt seem extortionate from the judge based on the story in my opinion - the bakers fault for traumatising two people!

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237042)

How far did they have to walk to a new bakers? :suspect: To Timbuktu? How many days off work for the distress of not eating some cake :(

(I agree the bakers are in the wrong btw..just find it all a bit ridiculous and kind of agree that I can't see anyone kicking up a fuss if the bakers were Hindi or Muslim or something)

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237044)

I think the story would have definitely been shared if the bakers were muslim, I think the outrage would have lasted a lot longer.

I just think, bottom line.. dont go in to public service if youre not prepared to serve all of the public. Expect a fine if you are likely to discriminate against certain groups for whatever reason.

But also, to give credit to your side of the argument, I wouldnt be surprised if the judge used the couple to make an example of them and their crime. The story was already very public before the fine, and the large figure would definitely send a message to lots of business owners. Maybe there was more depth to the judges decision.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237051)

Agreed and also agreed about the judge making an example of them too. It just seems...unfair. Mind, the business has hardly been punished for it given they have a surplus themselves of 300k+ from gofundme donations. So the precedent seems to be...do what the **** you like, your community will back you up AND whether the victim or the villain in the story, you will get a huge payout D:

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237060)

Haha, yeh. Nobody really lost here. Good news all round! Lets all go discriminate and/or claim we were discriminated against! Everyone will be millionaires!

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237054)

See..look at this then look at the 'first' (meaning first well publicized case) of these type cases..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237063)

Surely its a given that whatever your religious beliefs, if you go into public services you need to put them aside and treat everyone equal though...I don't really understand how these cases keep popping up.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237065)

I dont think theyre incredibly similar stories.. one couple was finalising wedding plans, the other couple just wanted to have a romantic night (presumably).
Being turned away for the former does seem more traumatic/emotional to me.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9237074)

It is not hard to get a wedding cake though. I actually think the gay couple would have had more 'distress' as imagine rocking up somewhere thinking you could stay there then having to find somewhere else that night. The cake could have been done at any stage :shrug:

Either example would probably just be a case of..walking a little further down the road or something mind. And both are clearly wrong (businesses not customers). Just...so much fuss made of a cake, ****s sake I got mine 3 days before my wedding after original person cancelled and the sky didn't cave in :laugh:

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9237082)

But although it is just driving a little further, it is still discrimnation based on sexuality. Its not appropriate to to suggest that gay people should be prepared to go to places with the knowledge that they may be turned away and told to go somewhere else because of their sexuality, whereas a straight couple would never need to go through this for the exact same reason. There shouldnt be this difference, business owners should be fined if they believe differently.
It isnt just a cake or a hotel room, its also discrimination

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 9236712)

You will do as your told.

We will decide how your business is run.

We are the dictators.



Basically.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9236995)

I look forward to the day bakers with Islamic faith are treated the same as other faiths in these situations :umm2: 135,000 for trauma :joker:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9237003)

So a question to all who support this ruling, would you go into a Hindu run bakery and demand they make you a cake with eggs in it? OR would accept that they don't bake cakes with eggs and go elsewhere rather than forcing your wishes on them?

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9237099)

All opinions come with consequences, if you are going to be bigoted in a business setting then you'll have to potentially deal with a lawsuit since you are breaking discrimination laws.

It's quite worrying that you see people facing consequences for discrimination as signs of a dictatorship in all honesty. Quite worrying indeed.



They would be treated the same if it was the same situation IE religious owners of a non-religious business. If the owners of the original story's bakery was called 'Sweet Cakes Christian Bakery' then it would be foolish to expect them to make a cake that would fly in the face of their belief but it isn't a Christian Bakery.



I think that's a silly inflamatory hypothetical situation.

If the business itself wasn't Hindu based then I'd expect them to make cakes with eggs since it would suggest they aren't devout since they wouldn't open a general bakery otherwise as they'd be expected to work with eggs every day, they'd probably opt for a specialist bakery instead and if that's the case, complaining about a lack of eggs would be like going to a vegetarian restaurant and getting mad about them not serving meat products.

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9237232)

Live and let live I say.
If it goes against their religion then aren't they being discriminated again for their beliefs?
If you go to a shop, any shop that can't supply what you want then you just move on to another, it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want to make it one....and certainly shouldn't be paid out for any feeling of hurt, indignity or trauma,( trauma, FFS)

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9237003)

So a question to all who support this ruling, would you go into a Hindu run bakery and demand they make you a cake with eggs in it? OR would accept that they don't bake cakes with eggs and go elsewhere rather than forcing your wishes on them?

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9237232)

Live and let live I say.
If it goes against their religion then aren't they being discriminated again for their beliefs?
If you go to a shop, any shop that can't supply what you want then you just move on to another, it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want to make it one....and certainly shouldn't be paid out for any feeling of hurt, indignity or trauma,( trauma, FFS)

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9237252)

It's neither silly nor inflammatory as it has happened to me, they didn't have any signage to say they were a specialist bakery, they just redirected me elsewhere and like most normal people I accepted it. This issue is actually trivialising real discrimation and for me it looks like they were looking for a payday rather than actually highlighting discrimination.

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 9237262)

That's very different tbf, eggs haven't fought against discrimination in quite the same way gays have :hee:



It wasn't as though the shop "can't" supply them though, it's that they refused to on grounds of their sexuality. Can you imagine if a shop owner refused to serve someone based on their race? I think, yeah it's just a cake, and yes the amount of money seems a bit ridiculous, but there's no denying they were being discriminatory, and people who are going to run a business in a discriminatory fashion shouldn't be running a business.. And they aren't being discriminated against because of their beliefs, their beliefs contradict with business law and they made the decision to run a business. They can't simply expect the law to change or for them to be immune from it because of their personally held beliefs. And they aren't actually being stopped from having their beliefs, they are entitled to practise their religion however they want as anyone else is able to.... as long as it doesn't infringe on the law. They can still believe that gay marriage is wrong, they just can't refuse sale to someone based on their sexuality when they're supposed to be serving the general public... 'live and let live' would be something that I think they could do well to consider.