I don't think it's possible to be both sad and gay...
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I don't think it's possible to be both sad and gay...
Indeed
.Some extreme views here, it's not like you're an arms dealer and you have to be selective as to who you sell to.
If I was in the cake making business my interest first and foremost would be to make money from selling cakes, there's obviously a bit of art and creativity involved, so these would be more interesting commissions, I wouldn't want to be knocking out victoria sponges with white icing all day every day, there are automated production lines for that kinda thing.
Stephen Fry is sad and gay... (oh that kind of sad) - sorry couldn't resist.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,373
- Location
- Darwen
It wasn't a gay couple.
Ashers don't advertise themselves as a Christian bakery.
Read and understand.
Problem is who cooks.
*hides*
It depends on what you want cooking
From what I've gathered, there's literally no point trying to reason with him. He's in a position he hasn't even reasoned himself in to, you aren't going to reason him out of it.
Political beliefs are protected by law.
Murdering people however, whilst it can be appealing, unfortunately is illegal for fairly obvious reasons lol!
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,142
- Location
- Woking
There's nothing sick about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,142
- Location
- Woking
DP. Stupid edit button!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Which law is that? Genuine question
Reading between the lines I think what he is referring to is freedom of speech maybe, just guessing.
From the national secular societies website.
An Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that political views constitute a "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act.
The EAT was ruling on the case of the General Municipal and Boilermakers (GMB) Union v Keith Henderson, in which Henderson, a former employee, had claimed he was discriminated against for his "democratic socialist beliefs." The EAT decided that Henderson's political views should have the same protection in the workplace under the Equality Act 2010 as religious views do.
and also human rights articles 10 and 11.
"The European Court of Human Rights held that the lack of unfair dismissal protection did interfere with Mr Redfearn’s right under Article 11. The Court felt that the absence of safeguards in the UK legal system which allows dismissal solely on account of the employee’s membership of a political party carried the potential for abuse. The Court was sympathetic to the difficult position Serco was placed in, but stressed that Article 11 applies regardless of whether the political views held are offensive or inoffensive. The Court felt what should be decisive in such cases is that the domestic courts or tribunals be allowed to decide whether or not, in the circumstances of a particular case, the interests of the employer should prevail over Article 11 rights, regardless of the length of the period of employment of the employee."
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
That's what I thought you might say (and what I'm already aware of). Both of those only apply to employment and unfair dismissal so are irrelevant here as the gay couple weren't being fired from Ashers.
Yes, that's where it was first recognised. It does not only apply to employment law. Its recognition was founded however as a result of employment disputes. Infact, since those cases the law has been beefed up significantly in regards to it.
Sure you could, but you shouldn't have to.
You should be free from any obligation to work against Your will!
And You should be free from having to lie about why You don't want to!
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,373
- Location
- Darwen
I don't want to have to help black people at my job, should I claim my beliefs are being infringed upon to get out of doing it?
So your issue is that you just don't want them to say why they won't do it, but the actual reasons don't matter?
I've asked this a few times now, but I haven't seen any replies. Why would you even want someone producing something for you where they didn't actually want to do it?
Discrimination and legality aside, surely if you wanted something doing, and you found out the person had issues with gays, you would want to know that about them so that you could go elsewhere.
The person has the chance to change their ways, or risk continuing to act like that, and continually lose business and eventually closing down.
I don't really get why anyone would bother going through the hassle of going legal, just because they can, that they were offended, and because what the other party did was considered illegal?
When you take in to consideration harm caused, well there wasn't any. So as above, the sensible thing really is to tell people that the bakery won't do pro-gay marriage cakes and to go elsewhere.
If it's a big issue, then they'll lose business.