New here? Register in under one minute   Already a member? Login361265 members (141 yesterday), private messages


cottaging.co.uk > Forums > The lounge > Cakegate decision reversed...

 
See newest message in thread

Cakegate decision reversed...

By *eyley  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Oh well...!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*ordic-knight By *ordic-knight   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Quite frankly a lot of fuss about nothing. If I had been refused such a cake by these bakers I would have probably told them that they were being petty and small-minded but that would be that. Simply move on to the next baker who would be happy to accept your custom.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *aravaggio  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Since when has a supplier HAD to deal with every customer who comes to his door? Answer, he doesn't, and this is the way this should have been handled through the courts. There should have been no mention of the fact that he didn't like the message on the cake. It is solely down to the supplier as to whether to accept a contract or not, and an offer to purchase, is an offered contract. the baker should just have said that he didn't want to accept the contract. When he took the first order(contract) there was no message on the cake. By wanting to add a message to the cake, the buyer was proposing a NEW contract, as by law, any contract that is amended becomes a new contract. You cannot alter an existing contract without it becoming a new contract.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eyley  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

What he said.....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*ordic-knight By *ordic-knight   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

This should never have gone to court in the first place. I wonder how much it has all cost and I sincerely hope that tax payers have not had to pay.

What annoys me is that the media keep referring to this company as Christian bakers as if Christianity was some kind of minority niche cult. Most modern minded Christians live and let live and don't have particularly strong views on the subject one way or the other.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eyley  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"This should never have gone to court in the first place. I wonder how much it has all cost and I sincerely hope that tax payers have not had to pay.

What annoys me is that the media keep referring to this company as Christian bakers as if Christianity was some kind of minority niche cult. Most modern minded Christians live and let live and don't have particularly strong views on the subject one way or the other."

This cake has cost £500,000 approx so far.... a mix of public money and personal liability. The usual applies, the solicitors have "benefited".

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*xLedZepxx2 By *xLedZepxx2   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"Quite frankly a lot of fuss about nothing. If I had been refused such a cake by these bakers I would have probably told them that they were being petty and small-minded but that would be that. Simply move on to the next baker who would be happy to accept your custom. "

I agree, a bit of a storm in a teacup, to be fair to the bakers, from what I understand they wanted some sort of gay rights message on the cake and that is what the bakers objected to. I personally think this sort of gay rights activism doesn't do the LBGT community in general any favours.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *ljcleeve   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"Quite frankly a lot of fuss about nothing. If I had been refused such a cake by these bakers I would have probably told them that they were being petty and small-minded but that would be that. Simply move on to the next baker who would be happy to accept your custom.

I agree, a bit of a storm in a teacup, to be fair to the bakers, from what I understand they wanted some sort of gay rights message on the cake and that is what the bakers objected to. I personally think this sort of gay rights activism doesn't do the LBGT community in general any favours."

I agree, while it doesn't do the baker in question a lot of good it really shows up the LBGT community as being rather stupid, small minded and petty.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *ndyBath  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

I like cake with a mug of tea or coffee

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*oredEric By *oredEric  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Since when (the opening phrase of the indignant it appears) can anyone these days afford to turn away good business.

Who cares what they want on the cake, customers, turnover, profit, employment are what matters.

This cake is now worth £450,036.50 and on the assumption of an appeal only getting more expensive by the minute.

All that could have been avoided, eggs, flour, sugar, some colouring and that was all pretty much. They could have saved £450,000 between them.

It's only a bloody cake, they weren't being asked to give a blowjob or take a fucking as part of the deal.

I object to those Brats dolls, look like little prostitutes in training to me, but had the little dears insisted on a cake with them on silly sod here would have trotted along to get one.

This is purely about intolerance, fear, and loathing. It's not catching, it's not being made compulsory, and they're not that attractive that coachloafs of us would turn up lusting after them.

Make the bloody cake and be done with it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *aravaggio  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Ref the above post ….. a clear case of "this is how I think, therefore everyone should think like me". Get it into your head, not everyone in this big wide world thinks that being gay is good, especially when the more militant get on their bandwagons.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*xLedZepxx2 By *xLedZepxx2   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"Ref the above post ….. a clear case of "this is how I think, therefore everyone should think like me". Get it into your head, not everyone in this big wide world thinks that being gay is good, especially when the more militant get on their bandwagons. "

As I mentioned earlier, from what I heard on the news and interviews with the bakers it wasn't making a cake for a gay couple that they objected to, they were happy to make the cake, what they objected to was some sort of gay rights statement that the couple wanted on the cake. Now as I remember, this is a free country, if someone doesn't want to take on a commission then they are free to turn it down without jumped up activists with a huge chip on their shoulder taking issue, like I said earlier, gay activists like that couple do no favours to the wider LBGT community.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*ordic-knight By *ordic-knight   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Quite frankly neither side of this storm in a teacup [or should that be a cake tin] come out of this very well. It should never have gone anywhere near a court of law. Both sides have ended up looking like small-minded fundamentalists.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By  *ebelatsea    profile verified by photo premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

I'm sorry but If I had been the judge I would have classed this as frivulous misuse of the law, fined the complainants and reported the solicitors etc to the Bar council.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ree as a dove   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

I think it is important to be able to be rationale about the substantive question posed and on reading the WHOLE of the Judgement I together with what I have read since yesterday many have come to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court.

LADY HALE: (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agree)

I am only going to copy 2 sections at the beginning, the remainder if you care to learn something you will look at the case on the Supreme Courts website.

1. The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God. If the prima facie answer to either question is “yes”, then questions arise as to the rights of the bakery and its owners to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, under articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and what difference, if any, those rights might make to that prima facie answer.

2. At first instance in the county court, the district judge held that there was direct discrimination, both on grounds of sexual orientation and on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, and that it was not necessary to read down the relevant legislation to make it compatible with the bakery owners’ rights under articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The bakery and its owners appealed by way of case stated, raising seven questions, to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal only found it necessary to answer two questions, holding that there was direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and that it was not necessary to read down the legislation to take account of the bakery owners’ beliefs. The bakery and its owners wish to appeal to this court.

So there we have the question which the Supreme Court Judges had to decide upon, I have read the whole 30 page decision transcript and its interesting in how “The Equalities Commission” whether here in Great Britain or Northern Ireland have attempted to get into every aspect of our lives something I was not aware of until this ruling. From what I have gleamed from this ruling is “it was always about the cake itself, never the customer”, that’s what I had thought when I first read this nearly four years ago and now the United Kingdoms highest court has come to the very same conclusion. The five justices on the Supreme Court have unanimously decided that the refusal to make a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage”, by Ashers bakery in Belfast, did not discriminate against Gareth Lee, the LGBT activist who ordered it.

If Ashers had refused to serve Lee because he was gay, then that would have been a clear act of discrimination, and the bakery’s evangelical Christian owners would absolutely have deserved to be prosecuted and fined. But that’s not what happened.

As the president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, said and I quote “The bakers did not refuse to fulfill his order because of his sexual orientation. They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee. “Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee.”

That is exactly the argument I have been making since this costly, divisive case, which was ill-advisedly brought by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, first emerged in 2014.

Anyone, gay, straight or anywhere in between who was a supporter of marriage equality could have walked into the Ashers shop on Belfast’s Royal Avenue and ordered a cake with that slogan on it. It was a grave error of logic to assume that a customer asking for a pro-equality message must be gay, and that a refusal to agree to such a request, therefore, made that person a victim of discrimination.

Now I have never really been a great fan of the veteran gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, but this time he was correct because he also came to acknowledge, after initially condemning Ashers, is in forcing businesses, by law, to help promote political or religious ideas with which they profoundly disagree.

In an open, tolerant and free democracy, no individual, institution or company should be under any obligation to facilitate the dissemination of beliefs that are antithetical to their own ethos. As Tatchell correctly observed, “discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas and opinions”.

Instead, let the judgment stand for what it is, “A Victory for Freedom”, which means a victory for all of us. We have the liberty to choose our own political or religious beliefs and stick by them, regardless of how unpopular they may be. We have the liberty to refuse to have the beliefs of others imposed upon us by an authoritarian arm of the state.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *awtyCawty   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

What I don’t get is why the guy just didn’t get over it and go to another cake shop, instead of being a complete bellend about it and wasting everyone’s time and money.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By  *ingeslut    profile verified by photo premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

only the lawyers have won........

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ree as a dove   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

No you are completly wrong, first and foremost it should never have even seen the light of day in the lower courts, but it was Mr Lee who reported this to the Equalities Commission and it was they who took this first to Court, yes the Ashers Bakery who Appealed and lost but the Supreme Court was correct and as I have posted above.

The judgment stands for what it is, “A Victory for Freedom”, which means a victory for all of us. We have the liberty to choose our own political or religious beliefs and stick by them, regardless of how unpopular they may be. We have the liberty to refuse to have the beliefs of others imposed upon us by an authoritarian arm of the state.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*reshMeatKent By *reshMeatKent  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

A publicity stunt.

Any shop owner can refuse to serve anybody, it is entirely at their discretion.

The case should never have got near any court as a previous poster said.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*oredEric By *oredEric  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"Ref the above post ….. a clear case of "this is how I think, therefore everyone should think like me". Get it into your head, not everyone in this big wide world thinks that being gay is good, especially when the more militant get on their bandwagons. "

And look at the argument it causes, just make the cake, take the £36.50 and be done with it.

Instead look at the mess! You fully advocate this complete disaster do you?

Why would you worry about what message someone wants on a cake? You're a cake maker, you make cakes, do you now refuse them a birthday cake because they support gay rights? Do you refuse to serve anyone you see them with? Why not refuse to serve black people? Jewish people? Left handed people? It's just a fucking cake, bake it, decorate it, hand it over, next customer please.

Instead, you're accusing me of all sorts of shit, other living room lawyers are busy typing, real lawyers are wishing they'd got this one, newspaper editors are grinning from ear to ear as this writes itself. Meanwhile a £36.50 cake needs baking.

Also, my mother baked cakes professionally, £36.50 isn't getting you much of a cake. Basic would describe what you'd get for £36.50.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *ayMan007   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

I have met the Ashers and they are lovely Christian people. NO ONE should have to make any product that carries a message that is against their religious beliefs. The equivalence would be Jewish baker being asked to produce a Nazi cake.

The final court case is a great endorsement of everyone's right to carry their own beliefs and NOT be made to do anything that is against them!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ree as a dove   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

I am sorry FreshmeatKent, you are wrong with your second line of your post and I quote “Any shop owner can refuse to serve anybody, it is entirely at their discretion”.

You cannot discriminate by refusing to serve anyone whether, through colour, race or creed, through their sexual orientation or from their religion.

There was a case in the UK where a guest house refused to allow a gay couple to share a room on religious grounds. As committed Christians, the operators only allowed married couples to share a room. The guesthouse’s website carried the following statement: Please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only. Following the refusal to rent a room to the gay couple, the dispute found its way to the UK Supreme Court after they appealed against the decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts decision and the proprietors were ordered to pay damages and costs.

This case about the cake was never about the fact that the person ordering the cake happened to be a gay activist it was always about “the cake” Ashers Bakery never refused to bake Mr Lee a cake on the grounds of his sexual orientation they refused on the religious grounds of their beliefs that marriage for them was between a man and a woman and therefore the words which Mr Lee wanted on his cake “Support Gay Marriage” was against their religious beliefs and that was what the Supreme Court agreed with.

Ultimately, this issue involves the balancing of two human rights. On the one hand, homosexual people are entitled to be free from discrimination and justly so and there is a law which protects all gay men and woman against any discrimination. On the other hand, Christians and other religious people are entitled to the free exercise of their religion. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. For many people, religious beliefs are part of their everyday life. This includes operating a business and providing commercial services to others. This is part of what the Supreme Court took into consideration when deciding their Judgment

However, what I am now beginning to appreciate is that the current exemptions to anti-discrimination laws do not cover commercial organisations or individuals. This has caused difficulties for religious people with strongly held views about homosexuality, as highlighted by the examples given above. So, where should the balance be? We cannot simply abandon the human right of religious freedom in pursuit of equality for homosexual people. Nor should we allow homosexual people to be subjected to the humiliation of being refused services on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Ultimately, the answer will be a matter of balance and may need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. What society and lawmakers cannot do is stick their heads in the sand and ignore this emerging battle between competing rights. If they do, the end result will be a winner and a loser. Instead we must confront this issue, debate it and strive for an outcome that preserves the fundamental human right to freedom of religion, including the practice of that religion in everyday life, alongside the rights of all people, including homosexuals, to be free from discrimination.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *attthew2  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Bert and Earnie are puppets.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *dge73   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

They have just came out as being gay

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*illsuk By *illsuk  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

As a matter of interest a licensee of a shop or pub may refuse to serve ANYONE and can reserve the right not to disclose why (licensee)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *dge73   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

And could you please take off your burka if you come in my shop please

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eeksYounger  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

The Ashers have had their court cases funded by the 'Christian Institute', a right-wing, evangekical, USA funded group of hateful bigots.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *ayMan007   profile verified by photo (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"The Ashers have had their court cases funded by the 'Christian Institute', a right-wing, evangekical, USA funded group of hateful bigots."

You are stating absolute garbage!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ree as a dove   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the UNITED KINGDOM and “the advancement of education”. The Christian Institute is a non-denominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UNITED KINGDOM. We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception

The McArthurs were helped by the Christian Institute which is a United Kingdom based Charity and they helped with the funding whereas the protracted and costly legal action was brought by the taxpayer-funded Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI).

The Charity Commission states clearly that the Christian Institute is funded by only UK domiciled individuals. Look at this Charity and you will see they have received NO donations from the USA.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*ordic-knight By *ordic-knight   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"I have met the Ashers and they are lovely Christian people."

Really!!!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*oredEric By *oredEric  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact


"They have just came out as being gay"

. Weren't they outed, rather than coming out?

Also, they are inanimate objects, felt, kapok, plastic, a few metal hinges, maybe even an electric motor, they're not people!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

*oredEric By *oredEric  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

@_ree as a dove, reading your cut and paste that group look likes an extremist UK based group akin to the insane groups of bigots you see in the US.

"Supreme authority", at that point they condemn themselves.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eeksYounger  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

When it comes to garbage, you are obviously the expert!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ree as a dove   premium paying member (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

A poster stated the Christian Institute were from the US, they are not and I took what I posted from “who we are” from their website so there could be NO misunderstanding word for word from their site. I suppose had I altered a word or two you would have come back and said that’s not what they say……..so for those who appear to have a pedantic streak in them this afternoon, the Christian Institute is a registered in England as a charity. Company No. 263 4440

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *nubis51  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

All that fuss over a bloody cake! Some folk need to examine their priorities in life, stop lining solicitor's pockets and wasting the resources of the legal system!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

XXX pic...
login to view
By *ockpleaser  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

It was reported today that the gay activist targeted the bakers because of their well known beliefs, and fully realised what the outcome would be, enabling him to challenge through the courts.

He's had the issue debated and judged but I believe had wished for a different outcome.

I think the higher court was right to overturn the rulings. I would not have supported them refusing to bake a cake, or refuse the slogan, because he was gay.

A victory for common sense I think.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eeksYounger  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

Reported by whom?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *eeksYounger  (M) 2 weeks ago

@private mail, +add as contact

The Christian Institute is indeed financed by British donors. But, who are they? The Vinyard Church? Based in NI. Where does their funding come from? Other British evengelical nutters also fund the CI, but we are never told of their donors. The Charity Commission website doesn't reveal the who donates to any particular charity. These 'churches' claim to be charities to milk the British taxpayer dry.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

Add a new message to this topic

0.0937

0.0156