[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

I couldn't marry in a synagogue because I was not marrying a Jew. Thems the rules... But I didn't feel like I was being victimised because I understood the rules. I never took the synagogue to court... I got married somewhere else. Actually we found an understanding CofE vicar who was happy to marry us. We could have made a massive song and dance about it but like I said, I understood the rules meant a synagogue couldn't marry us for religious reasons. It's not only gay people who are excluded from marrying in particular religious venues.

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.

[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 Ł40,000 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 célčbre' 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.

[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 Ł40,000 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 célčbre' 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.

[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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

That did'nt happen and i still have a point
Although i'm beginning to forget what that point was

haha, well, I just don't think we're going to agree on this but it was a good old debate of a Thursday morning

Originally Posted by Livia

I couldn't marry in a synagogue because I was not marrying a Jew. Thems the rules... But I didn't feel like I was being victimised because I understood the rules. I never took the synagogue to court... I got married somewhere else. Actually we found an understanding CofE vicar who was happy to marry us. We could have made a massive song and dance about it but like I said, I understood the rules meant a synagogue couldn't marry us for religious reasons. It's not only gay people who are excluded from marrying in particular religious venues.

For me the whole whether or not a church, mosque etc should be forced to do the actual ceremonies is a different matter altogether, it's not really a public business as Joey pointed out earlier

[Northern Monkey]

Ah that's it.Discriminating against somebody's religious freedom is still discrimination.

[Crimson Dynamo]

what if the Christian baker started wolf whistling at well stacked girls as they walked past his shop?

What would "the gays" have to say about that?

[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

[bots]

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

[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 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.

[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.

[MB.]

And this is why I rarely venture into Serious Debates.

[Kizzy]

Dare I ask what the tattoo was?

[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.

[Kizzy]

Conformist!

[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