I disagree it's the endorsement of an illegal act, it's a statement in support of changing the law to enable it be a legal act (there is a subtle distinction).
However, distinction or not, it can still be construed as being associated with the act itself...and that is important in any companies ability to decide how it conducts and choices its contracts and the obligation therein.
I could support the legalisation of cannabis, but be firmly against the smoking of it in it's currently illegal state - by supporting the legalisation I'm in no way supporting an illegal act. I'm supporting changes to make it legal.
You also retain the right to not associate yourself or your actions with that issue, it could also be construed that by openly supporting the rights therein you are also supporting the act itself...regardless of the actual truth of your position and this could potentially damage your business or reputation and you should be able to protect yourself from such by retaining the right to not openly or by association be seen to support (or indeed not support) any given position that may be or be associated with an illegal act.
Which is all fine, assuming they do not break our equality laws.
Unless they refused them in the basis that they were Gay, and there is nothing to suggest they did, then they are not breaking any equality laws...Same Sex Marriage is illegal in the region in which they trade.
Just because it's their ethos to discriminate against same sex marriage related products it in no way immunised them from criticism & legal challenge - essentially their business 'ethos' may turn out to be illegal if they lose the case.
Anyone can criticise them, however the legal challenge is spurious as all they have done is refuse a contract that would have had a controversial impact on their business and could associate them with a currently illegal act or the support of therein. If the law changes then they would be required to change their policy accordingly, but until that happens you should not be able to force a company to support, even by association, anything that is currently illegal where they trade.
As above, I disagree that endorsing a challenge to existing laws is the same thing as endorsing an illegal act.
It can be construed as such and the association of the act with the challenge to the act is clear and therefore a company should be free to decide for itself whether it will associate itself with either the act or the challenge to legalise (or indeed criminalise) the act.
Additionally, the current legal status is essentially a blip - once Northern Ireland catches up with the rest of the developing world in which changes are occurring rapidly that defence will be absent.
That make no difference, the law is currently as it is, whether we agree with it or not. We can only deal with what is, not what we think it should be.
Neither was it the defence presented by the owners in question, it was based on religious grounds.
They disagree with Same Sex Marriage, they are free to do so, and currently in Northern Ireland Same Sex Marriage is illegal so it not covered by the discrimination act as such...it would have to be proven they refused to produce the slogan solely on the basis that the people ordering it were homosexuals and that if they were not homosexuals that the order would have been fulfilled. If that cannot be proven that I cannot see how there is a valid case for discrimination based on sexual orientation of the people requesting the service.
Again (apologies for reiterating the same point) - I don't agree that the use of a product or service constitutes endorsement.
It can be associative. We see it all the time in business with companies who uses controversial products being associated with the actual controversy itself. A company should be free to decide whether to associate itself with such, within the currently legal framework of course.
Endorsement is something done by the company in question (like when many companies in the US publicly expressed endorsement towards equal rights for marriage), not by people who use their products.
Association...you are ignoring the very real issue of being associated with any product that you make, even if it is for someone else or is used in another unrelated field.
Nobody is forcing them to endorse, support or oppose - simply to engage in the basis transactional relationship required by the law.
There is no law that requires someone to produce a product that endorses or supports a change in the law. A company is free to choose who it contracts to and as long as they have not broken the law in doing so (and they would have to prove that it was the fact that the buyer was homosexual rather than it simply being the nature of the product itself) and as the slogan was specifically related to Support for Same Sex Marriage and a change in the current law, I cannot see why a company should be forced to supply products that are designed to endorse that if they do not wish to. As I said, if it were a wedding cake (assuming same sex marriage was legal) and they refused that, then that would be legally discriminatory, but the opposition of Same Sex Marriage is not and in Northern Ireland at least Same Sex Marriage is still illegal and I can understand why a company would not want to be associated with such a controversial argument.
