Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

I didn't say you said it, but you seem to be implying that you only read that they refused on the basis of the persons homosexuality. There's no need to rolleyes at me.

I think there was a need as I asked a simple question that I didn't know the answer to and got:

Castiel said:
Can you supply a quote supporting that they said homosexuals are wrong'uns as It was expressed?

Which frankly it a bit off as I never even implied such.

So have another! :rolleyes:

Frankly all we have is one side of the story as the people that made the complaint are just letting the Equality Commission deal with it.
 
I think there was a need as I asked a simple question that I didn't know the answer to and got:

Which frankly it a bit off as I never even implied such.

So have another! :rolleyes:

You said:

Because so far all I have seen is the bakers proclaiming that baking the cake was against their beliefs and mention of homosexuality rather than the specific mention of opposition to gay marriage.

So, asking for some reference for such is no more 'off' than your question to me...:rolleyes:
 
You said:



So, asking for some reference for such is no more 'off' than your question to me...:rolleyes:

Really? You think changing the wording to "homosexuals are wrong'uns" isn't just possibly rewording my post to expressing a much harsher sentiment than the one in my post?
 
They do not want to associate with or implicitly support a political campaign to change the law on same sex marriage...they have not produced literature on cakes to explicitly support a campaign to retain the law either.

They have made it clear they oppose gay marriage which IS a political stance.

There is a difference between refusing to support a political campaign regardless of your views on it and refusing to support a political campaign because of your views.

The former is refusing to support a political campaign, the latter is supporting the opposing political argument.

The former is non-partisan, the other is not.

Ashers are using the latter the justify their decision.

Conducting or receiving a Same sex marriage in Northern Ireland is illegal.

No it's not. If two men were in a field in NI with me and I said all the vows and declared them married would either....

A) I and the couple would be arrested/fined
B) Nothing would happen, the couple's union just wouldn't be recognized in any legal sense.

Hint, the answer is B.

'Illegal' isn't synonymous with 'not legal'. For something to be illegal it has to be explicitly declared so by statute, not simply omitted from the current legislation.


This is a matter of legislation in Northern Ireland and is not in dispute. The recognition of same sex marriages in Northern Ireland is unlawful, therefore same sex couples married under laws in other countries only receive recognition under the Civil Partnership rules in Northern Ireland.

I agree, my point is they are not arrested on arrival for marrying in another country which they would be if it were "illegal".

Not recognising something is different to recognising and prohibiting it.

In fact, this proves my point further. For something to be made illegal it must be recognised as an 'act' in the first place. Given gay marriage is not in NI shows it therefore cannot be 'illegal'.

The first, is positively forbidden (you cannot conduct a same sex wedding nor be married as a same sex couple in Northern Ireland) therefore illegal...

You are wrong again. The only unlawfully marriages 'positively' recognised in law in NI are close relations, the law simply doesn't state that gay people can have a marriage recognised by law, and again that is not the same as it being "illegal".

Read the thread, it was explained several times how a company can be implicitly associated with the goods and services it supplies and the campaigns, political and otherwise that it contracts to.

I'd rather have your justification than trawl through over 1,000 posts to find one.

Please explain how writing something on a cake means you 'support it' and therefore why that cake makers don't refuse to put a plethora of messages on they don't think are literally true?

I saw a cake the other day which said "World's Best Dad". Now given the baker had never met the man how can he 'support' such a statement and does this then bar that baker from making another for his father? Of course not.

They have based it on their belief that gay marriage should remain defined between a man and woman, which, in Northern Ireland is the current legal definition...are you saying they have to support, either explicitly or implicitly a change in the law or a group that is campaigning for a change in the law?

No, it is you who are defending their right to actively oppose a change in the law (hence hold a political stance) and not me. I am saying had they refused it on the basis they didn't want to be seen supporting any political message regardless of their view it would have been OK, but they didn't say that.

I am giving them the right to be ambivalent towards the issue and refuse on that basis, you are saying they should be able to take one side so long as that side is the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Really? You think changing the wording to "homosexuals are wrong'uns" isn't just possibly rewording my post to expressing a much harsher sentiment than the one in my post?

Please read what I said and where you quoted from.....I was referring to the way such was expressed in the post to which your quoted post of mine was in reference to, not that you stated that explicitly...
 
Please read what I said and where you quoted from.....I was referring to the way such was expressed in the post to which your quoted post of mine was in reference to, not that you stated that explicitly...

You wording certainly didn't make that clear as the only post quoted was mine and then your follow up post in specifically quoted me.

Not that it matters as this thread is just going over the same old tired ground, including the illegal debate again!
 
They have made it clear they oppose gay marriage which IS a political stance.

Only in defence of the reason why they do not wish to be associated with or be seen to condone the campaign for same sex marriage.


No it's not.

Yes it is, as explained already. To be illegal it only has to contravene current legislation, and in Northern Ireland the way current legislation defines marriage means that same sex marriage is illegal as it is a contravention of that legislation. Being illegal simply means that it is not authorised by law...There need not be any further stipulations than that. Every news and political source also refers to same sex marriage being illegal, so its pointless arguing over the semantics of the definition...particularly as you seem to be confusing illegal and unlawful.

http://thelawdictionary.org/illegal/

Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law


I agree, my point is they are not arrested on arrival for marrying in another country which they would be if it were "illegal".

Not recognising something is different to recognising and prohibiting it.

In fact, this proves my point further. For something to be made illegal it must be recognised as an 'act' in the first place. Given gay marriage is not in NI shows it therefore cannot be 'illegal'.

It doesn't prove your point. It proves you didn't read the post correctly as I stated while conducting or receiving a same sex marriage in Northern Ireland is illegal, ones conducted in other jurisdictions are simply unlawful...neither are recognised, but the latter receive the same rights as a civil partnership, as Same Sex Marriage remains illegal in Northern Ireland exceptions occur when that marriage is lawfully conducted in another jurisdiction.

I think you, as others are getting confused between the idea that illegal always means criminal with an act that needs to be criminally punished, simply the explicit refusal to recognise something in law and to refuse the apparatus with which to conduct and recognise it is what makes it illegal...as in the definition that it contravenes current legal definitions and legislation.

http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

You are wrong again. The only unlawfully marriages 'positively' recognised in law in NI are close relations, the law simply doesn't state that gay people can have a marriage recognised by law, and again that is not the same as it being "illegal".

See above. I said the first (as in conducting and receiving a same sex marriage) is illegal...the second (as in a same sex marriage conducted legally in another jurisdiction) is unlawful...which is why no recognition is given to it, other than treating it as a legal civil partnership under Northern Ireland's law.

Unless you can show me examples of same sex marriages recognised by Northern Ireland, or same sex marriages conducted in Northern Ireland then everything I have stated is correct.

I'd rather have your justification than trawl through over 1,000 posts to find one.

I have given it. In the last post as well...a company can be associated with and judged upon the contracts and contractors it supplies and the messages they convey...we see this all the time with pharmaceutical labs and military contractors and poltical organisations and so on...

Please explain how writing something on a cake means you 'support it' and therefore why that cake makers don't refuse to put a plethora of messages on they don't think are literally true?

Like I said, I've explained it.

No, it is you who are defending their right to actively oppose a change in the law (hence hold a political stance) and not me. I am saying had they refused it on the basis they didn't want to be seen supporting any political message regardless of their view it would have been OK, but they didn't say that.

That is exactly what they said..they do not support a change in the law and didn't want to be seen to support such a change either directly or indirectly. It's not rocket science to understand that.

I am giving them the right to be ambivalent towards the issue and refuse on that basis, you are saying they should be able to take one side so long as that side is the status quo.

They should be free to support or not support any political campaign they choose to. If they do not wish their company to be associated with the campaign to change the law in Northern Ireland they should not be forced to.
 
Last edited:
In which case they simply say, "we don't make flapjacks" and the person goes to another Baker who does make flapjacks...alternatively you could sue Baker number one for not supplying you with a flapjack.
No you couldn't. Any business in Trade and Retail retains the right not to supply for any reason.
 
Gay Cake back in the news;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29926372

A priest, part of the Catholic Council for Social Affairs, has cut communication with gay groups as a protest over the Gay Cake issue. He wants Christians to be recognised by the Equality Commission to have the right to "freedom of conscience", which seems to mean freedom to discriminate against gays (?)
 
Rekt, homophobic trash. (also Norn' Ire, seriously needs to evolve a tad, its tiresome hearing the same nasty crap from that colo... - nation.)
 
Last edited:
I've no problem with gay marriage but I don't agree with the ruleing because at the end of the day the comapny has now been told it has to support campaigns the company and it's employees may not believe in thus infringing on thier freedoms at the end of the day any organisation can now try to use the company's cakes to promote stuff and they can't say no.
 
Great advertising for the bakery and you can be sure all the religious nuts who far outweigh the benders will be placing their cake requests with them from here onwards. A win win for them. Probably had their gay pals order the cake in the first place, so they could kick up a ruckus !
 
I've no problem with gay marriage but I don't agree with the ruleing because at the end of the day the comapny has now been told it has to support campaigns the company and it's employees may not believe in thus infringing on thier freedoms at the end of the day any organisation can now try to use the company's cakes to promote stuff and they can't say no.

Personally IMO, if they didn't want to get brought into a situation like this, they shouldn't have gone into business.
 
I've no problem with gay marriage but I don't agree with the ruleing because at the end of the day the company has now been told it has to support campaigns the company and it's employees may not believe in thus infringing on their freedoms at the end of the day any organisation can now try to use the company's cakes to promote stuff and they can't say no.

What about during the day? :D
 
Personally IMO, if they didn't want to get brought into a situation like this, they shouldn't have gone into business.

So you're saying no business has a right to support a particular Political viewpoint or have a stance on something they feel strongly about and have to be impartial no matter what's going on in the world in which case I'd say pretty much all businesses are now open to litigation.
 
If i ran that kind of company i would have absolutely zero qualms selling anything cake based as long as i made a profit.

Look out for "Efour's Hitler ISIS and Al qaeda" cake ranges coming to a shelf near you soon.

(No i probably wouldn't, just failing to be funny)
 
Back
Top Bottom