In a decision that should have surprised nobody, owners of a Belfast bakery who refused a customer's order for a pro-gay marriage cake two years ago have lost their discrimination appeal. America, take note: this is how it's done:

Quote:The firm argued that the cake's message was against the bakers' religious views.

Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".

"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.

"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.

"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.

"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."

In court on Monday, three judges said it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message.

In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."

When are idiots like this going to get it into their thick heads?

(October 24, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In a decision that should have surprised nobody, owners of a Belfast bakery who refused a customer's order for a pro-gay marriage cake two years ago have lost their discrimination appeal. America, take note: this is how it's done:

Quote:The firm argued that the cake's message was against the bakers' religious views.

Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".

"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.

"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.

"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.

"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."

In court on Monday, three judges said it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message.

In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."

When are idiots like this going to get it into their thick heads?

So you think people should be forced to created something they morally disagree with?

Forced? No. But when they are providing a public service, their personal sensibilities are irrelevant.

And apparently the law agrees with me.

Can a content provider refuse to write a pro-life article for a fundamentalist website?

(October 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Forced? No. But when they are providing a public service, their personal sensibilities are irrelevant.

And apparently the law agrees with me.

So not forced to do it, just fined and punished if they don't....coercion right?

But they aren't preforming a service of preservation ie cleaning/maintenance/repair. Their service is creating something that did not exist before. I don't think they should have to create something they morally disagree with or be fined for refusing to create it. The free market is more than capable of working out the bigots.

@Chad: I don't know; can they? Do you have an example of this? Is providing content for a fundamentalist magazine the same as providing a service to the general public?

(October 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Forced? No. But when they are providing a public service, their personal sensibilities are irrelevant.

If a business prints pamphlets, are you saying they cannot refuse to serve customer who want to publish political and religious messages with which they disagree?

From an abstract point of view, the surface of a cake is no different from a blank sheet of paper, and the frosted message is no different from ink.

(October 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So not forced to do it, just fined and punished if they don't....coercion right?

But they aren't preforming a service of preservation ie cleaning/maintenance/repair.  Their service is creating something that did not exist before.  I don't think they should have to create something they morally disagree with or be fined for refusing to create it.  The free market is more than capable of working out the bigots.

Let me put it this way. The only bone of contention in this case was the same-sex marriage angle, deemed to be against the bakers' personal beliefs. Would they have the same reservations about a straight wedding cake? If not, this is discrimination, plain and simple. Are you advocating for discrimination, and if so, on what are you justifying it?

I think we all know the answer.

How about this: A black person orders a cake from a white baker for a party and wants the cake to say "Congrats my nigg@s" White guy is extremely uncomfortable making such a cake and refuses. Discrimination? Racism? Reverse racism?

(October 24, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Forced? No. But when they are providing a public service, their personal sensibilities are irrelevant.

If a business prints pamphlets, are you saying they cannot refuse to serve customer who want to publish political and religious messages with which they disagree?

Legally, no they can't.