[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well that's not right either if they are making money from the services.

I think religious establishments should only be able to use their beliefs to discriminate if they aren't actually making any money from doing so. If they are then they should have to uphold the discrimination laws like any other business should.

We had to pay a fee and an pay for an organist but it was a tiny amount of money compared to the commercial wedding venues. Synagogues the same, it's just a small fee. They don't really make money from it because it's a place of worship, not a business.

[kirklancaster]

I actually used the Cake Shop incident as an example, but it is wrong to say that this thread is specifically confined to the Cake shop case in Ireland only, or confined to businesses only, because the actual thread title is: "Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage", and the text from the article quoted in the OP includes:

"The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”

So comment regarding Gay Marriages in Churches and other Religious places of worship is fair comment and should NOT be dissmissed by other FM's.

In any event, I have now been researching more into this case and several notable points place a new perspective on it and render it far more than any simple 'open and shut' case of discrimination and homophobia:

1) Gareth Lee - the man who placed the order for the cake is a Gay Rights activist and a volunteer member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space.
(Which to me explains just WHY this case ever materialised in the first place.)

2) 'Ashers' the Christian-Run bakery at the heart of the case is a family business owned by the McArthurs.

3) It was established that "Ashers serve gay customers in their shop on a daily basis"

(Which to me dispels any notions that the McArthurs are 'homophobic'.)

4) David Scoffield, QC for Ashers, said: "The defendants neither knew nor cared about Mr Lee's sexual orientation or his religious beliefs, if any, or his political opinions.

4)The QC added; that the refusal had been down to the content of the cake and was not connected to any characteristic of the customer.

(Which to me says that had Lee not ordered a cake with the slogan and motif on it there would have been no problem.)

5) "If a heterosexual couple had placed the same order they would have got the same response" Ashers QC tells court.

6) This is plainly not a sexual orientation case" Mr Scoffield QC for Ashers says.

7) "The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage" Karen McArthur

8) Ashers QC asks "When the McArthurs put on their bakers apron must they put aside their religious beliefs, the very core of who they are?"

9) "Once a genuine case of 'Conscientious Objection' is established the state is obliged to protect the rights of the objectors" says Ashers QC.

(See my post below on 'The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights' which for me bearts out that 'Ashers' were within their LAWFUL rights to refuse the order.)

10) Ashers QC says if businesses are forced to produce goods against their religious beliefs it would "allow the malicious to stir up trouble"

11) The QC adds: "When individuals are forced to produce goods promoting a cause with which they strongly disagree, that is the antithesis to democracy"

12) Ashers' QC David Scoffield says Mr Lee's "perception of the reason" his order was refused is "irrelevant".

13) QC says he doesn't "want to minimise the hurt the plaintiff says he feels" but suggests Mr Lee was perhaps being "over sensitive"

(I bet!)

14) QC for Ashers tells judge the issue isn't how much sympathy there is for Mr Lee but must be determined objectively & dispassionately.

15) A barrister for Christian-run County Antrim firm Ashers said if they lost the discrimination case there would be wide-reaching consequences for shop owners.

16) He said it would mean a Muslim printer could not refuse to print a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

(Think about this deeply.)

17) The 'Equality Commission has set aside a fund of up to £40,000 to pay for legal costs in the case.

(What a huge waste of money on such a trivial matter which common sense could have avoided.)

Further;

'1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights'

In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

I believe that local Gay Activist Gareth Lee probably had local knowledge that 'Ashers' were devout hard-line Christians, and deliberately placed his order there suspecting that it would be refused, so he could 'over-react' and then make it a 'cause célèbre' of a 'Test Case' around the time of the commemoration of 'The International Day Against Homophobia' last May.

Having read quite a few articles now, I am amazed that anyone deemed there to even be a Prima Facie case here. IMHO.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

We had to pay a fee and an pay for an organist but it was a tiny amount of money compared to the commercial wedding venues. Synagogues the same, it's just a small fee. They don't really make money from it because it's a place of worship, not a business.

exactly the nonsense accusation all Churchers are money grabbers is simply a huge fat lie

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I actually used the Cake Shop incident as an example, but it is wrong to say that this thread is specifically confined to the Cake shop case in Ireland only, or confined to businesses only, because the actual thread title is: "Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage", and the text from the article quoted in the OP includes:

"The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”

So comment regarding Gay Marriages in Churches and other Religious places of worship is fair comment and should NOT be dissmissed by other FM's.

In any event, I have now been researching more into this case and several notable points place a new perspective on it and render it far more than any simple 'open and shut' case of discrimination and homophobia:

1) Gareth Lee - the man who placed the order for the cake is a Gay Rights activist and a volunteer member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space.
(Which to me explains just WHY this case ever materialised in the first place.)

2) 'Ashers' the Christian-Run bakery at the heart of the case is a family business owned by the McArthurs.

3) It was established that "Ashers serve gay customers in their shop on a daily basis"

(Which to me dispels any notions that the McArthurs are 'homophobic'.)

4) David Scoffield, QC for Ashers, said: "The defendants neither knew nor cared about Mr Lee's sexual orientation or his religious beliefs, if any, or his political opinions.

4)The QC added; that the refusal had been down to the content of the cake and was not connected to any characteristic of the customer.

(Which to me says that had Lee not ordered a cake with the slogan and motif on it there would have been no problem.)

5) "If a heterosexual couple had placed the same order they would have got the same response" Ashers QC tells court.

6) This is plainly not a sexual orientation case" Mr Scoffield QC for Ashers says.

7) "The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage" Karen McArthur

8) Ashers QC asks "When the McArthurs put on their bakers apron must they put aside their religious beliefs, the very core of who they are?"

9) "Once a genuine case of 'Conscientious Objection' is established the state is obliged to protect the rights of the objectors" says Ashers QC.

(See my post below on 'The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights' which for me bearts out that 'Ashers' were within their LAWFUL rights to refuse the order.)

10) Ashers QC says if businesses are forced to produce goods against their religious beliefs it would "allow the malicious to stir up trouble"

11) The QC adds: "When individuals are forced to produce goods promoting a cause with which they strongly disagree, that is the antithesis to democracy"

12) Ashers' QC David Scoffield says Mr Lee's "perception of the reason" his order was refused is "irrelevant".

13) QC says he doesn't "want to minimise the hurt the plaintiff says he feels" but suggests Mr Lee was perhaps being "over sensitive"

(I bet!)

14) QC for Ashers tells judge the issue isn't how much sympathy there is for Mr Lee but must be determined objectively & dispassionately.

15) A barrister for Christian-run County Antrim firm Ashers said if they lost the discrimination case there would be wide-reaching consequences for shop owners.

16) He said it would mean a Muslim printer could not refuse to print a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

(Think about this deeply.)

17) The 'Equality Commission has set aside a fund of up to £40,000 to pay for legal costs in the case.

(What a huge waste of money on such a trivial matter which common sense could have avoided.)

Further;

'1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights'

In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

I believe that local Gay Activist Gareth Lee probably had local knowledge that 'Ashers' were devout hard-line Christians, and deliberately placed his order there suspecting that it would be refused, so he could 'over-react' and then make it a 'cause célèbre' of a 'Test Case' around the time of the commemoration of 'The International Day Against Homophobia' last May.

Having read quite a few articles now, I am amazed that anyone deemed there to even be a Prima Facie case here. IMHO.

Excellent post
This outlines everything i was trying to say in my posts.
If this case was won by this gay couple it could open up a whole epidemic of these cases and would be devastating for peoples right to practice their religion in this 'democratic' country.(unless of course you pray to Allah).
Imagine the trouble if mosques are forced to carry out gay weddings.Which if this case is won will have to happen.If one religion has their rights taken away then all have to,and it will cause a ****storm.

[Northern Monkey]

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy.

exactly some radical gay rights activists are deliberately looking for trouble

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy.

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.

gay rights doesn't give gay activists the freedom to discriminate or make death threats

[MB.]

And this is why I rarely venture into Serious Debates.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.

This cake shop does not offer or sell that cake.They don't refuse to serve gay people they just don't provide the cake that this couple wanted as it goes against their beliefs.This couple need to go to a shop which does sell the cake they desire.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by the truth

gay rights doesn't give gay activists the freedom to discriminate or make death threats

This is not the topic of thread or indeed of any related significance.

Everyone has to abide by the laws of the land, if they don't, you have anarchy. Plain and simple

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

This cake shop does not offer or sell that cake.They don't refuse to serve gay people they just don't provide the cake that this couple wanted as it goes against their beliefs.This couple need to go to a shop which does sell the cake they desire.

They do orders, they don't just go 'sorry, I looked in the store room, we've got no gay rights cakes, come back tomorrow morning when we've got a new delivery coming in'. They refused to make the cake because it supported gay rights, that's discrimination.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

They do orders, they don't just go 'sorry, I looked in the store room, we've got no gay rights cakes, come back tomorrow morning when we've got a new delivery coming in'. They refused to make the cake because it supported gay rights, that's discrimination.

Again.It is not a right to demand that the cake shop make anything.They can decide on the cakes that they offer.If they don't offer a particular cake then it is down to the customer to find somewhere that does.
I once went into a tattoo shop and asked for a custom design,The tattooist told me he would'nt be able to do it for some reason.I did'nt take him to court,I went somewhere else.

[Kizzy]

Dare I ask what the tattoo was?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Again.It is not a right to demand that the cake shop make anything.They can decide on the cakes that they offer.If they don't offer a particular cake then it is down to the customer to find somewhere that does.
I once went into a tattoo shop and asked for a custom design,The tattooist told me he would'nt be able to do it for some reason.I did'nt take him to court,I went somewhere else.

Again, that's a terrible comparison since you've been deliberately vague with the details and chances are he refused you because he simply couldn't do it.

That's different to refusing someone because they want something that supports Gay Rights.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

This is not the topic of thread or indeed of any related significance.

Everyone has to abide by the laws of the land, if they don't, you have anarchy. Plain and simple

it is part of the topic and is wholly relevant. you have to look at the whole picture not just a small part of it...this violence and death threats form the radical gay rights activists has gone unpunished , that must changed. there is no excuse for resorting to that level of depraved threats and violence on either side

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Dare I ask what the tattoo was?

Just a sleeve of tribal art to join up some i had got done years before.The ones i got done already just looked like 3 different designs on top of each other,The first i got whilst drunk and it was crap and the others although good in there own right did'nt look how i wanted as a whole.I wanted to join them up to make them look like one big design.Still not got it done yet but i went to a different place who said they could do it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Just a sleeve of tribal art to join up some i had got done years before.The ones i got done already just looked like 3 different designs on top of each other,The first i got whilst drunk and it was crap and the others although good in there own right did'nt look how i wanted as a whole.I wanted to join them up to make them look like one big design.Still not got it done yet but i went to a different place who said they could do it.

And there was me thinking it was something all controversial

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And there was me thinking it was something all controversial

Sorry no anarchy signs here.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, that's a terrible comparison since you've been deliberately vague with the details and chances are he refused you because he simply couldn't do it.

That's different to refusing someone because they want something that supports Gay Rights.

It does'nt matter why he could'nt do it just as it did'nt matter why the cake maker could'nt make the cake.It was the decision of the company as to the service or goods they provide.Then it is up to the customer to find somewhere which can provide it.
It would be another matter entirely if he'd said 'sorry we don't serve gays in here'.But that is not the case at all.

[Kizzy]

Conformist!

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

..why should they have to go elsewhere though, Kirk..is that not wrong that they should have to do that and does that not go against basic teachings of Christianity, that we are all one and the same in the eyes of God...I mean if there was a God and that's not saying there is but for people who believe he did then wouldn't it be a thing of ...'what would God do'..and the God they believe in, the God they have faith in/the God, the good..would not show prejudices, surely/he loved everyone and judged no one...it's not God that shows prejudices, it's man that shows prejudices and then tries to blame their God for those prejudices..this God they believe in and follow so much, well they really sold him out, didn't they..not their fault/God's fault, type thing...

..and there is no history of gay people persecuting, torturing and killing Christians like the KKK did with black people or the Nazi's did with Jewish people, because of that I think that a Jewish shop owner or a black shop owner would have every right and justification for saying....nope, I won't write that on a cake..in fact wouldn't it even be an insult and extremely offensive and disrespectful to ask them to in the first place....so honestly Kirk, if these prejudiced people shouldn't be forced then I really do believe they should be exposed for their prejudices and let them be judged as they are judging other and not in the name of their Lord either/let's not let them hide behind that...


..you know even in things like teaching/schools/nurturing and educating establishments/with the people who work there..?.. you and I could introduce our partner to the pupils and say...oh, this is Mr Ammi, my husband or Mrs Kirklancaster, my wife etc...but with staff who are gay..?..they still often have to say with their pupils..(in primary schools specifically I mean, just because that's where I have encountered it frequently..)...'this is my friend' as opposed to this is my husband or this is my wife and 'hide' who they are from young ears and minds....how does that encourage and educate to create less prejudice and keep with 'Christian' values....

[M X]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

I think it should be totally up to the cake shop what content they will print on their cakes.If they find something offensive then they should have the right to decline to make that cake.Iirc the gay men had been customers in the past of that shop and the owner had no problem taking their business before,So they had nothing against these people,Just the content which they had been told to put on their cake.
If it is the company's policy not to make cakes with offensive slogans on and this cake WAS offensive to them then they should be free to refuse to make a cake with it on.

If we are going to allow discrimination, where do we draw the line?
Would it be okay for a business to refuse service to an interracial couple because they don't believe that different races should marry?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by MichaelSpears

If we are going to allow discrimination, where do we draw the line?
Would it be okay for a business to refuse service to an interracial couple because they don't believe that different races should marry?

No,It would not be ok to refuse service for that reason.However it is up to the cake makers what design or text they are willing or able to put on the cake.They are the creators of it.I don't think an interracial couple would go in asking for a cake which says 'i support interracial marriage' on it.
If they did it would then be up to the cake company as to wether or not they could do that particular design.
However if they actually refused to serve an interracial couple any product they sell for that reason then that imo would be grounds for discrimination.
The cake shop had apparently done business with this bloke before iirc,He did'nt just refuse to serve him because he was gay.It was just the particular design that they wanted on the cake that was against the owners religious beliefs.
It's his shop,he can offer whatever products he likes in it at the end of the day.

[JoshBB]

The conservatives and libdems promised that they are already protected - and I believe them actually.

Seems like UKIP is trying to tap into the 'religious' vote, even though a lot of christians support gay marriage