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

Quite an awkward one, I do not believe Ashers discriminated as they were refusing the message and as others have said they would have refused the message regardless of whether a gay or straight person requested it.

However that said I can see the argument that some have made regarding it being discrimination because an equivalent service is refused i.e. Ashers would print the message about straight marriage. This of course is further complicated by the position in Northern Ireland that gay marriage is illegal, so printing a support of gay marriage is actually supporting an illegal position.

It is also worth bearing in mind that Ashers was likely deliberately targeted by Gareth Lee as he is a gay activist and Ashers would be known as a Christian Bakery that would likely have issues with the order. So this situation was deliberately brought about by Gareth Lee and was not a normal order.

Ultimately regardless of whether people agree with others beliefs we all need to attempt to accomodate and comprimise as far as possible. I think Ashers as a relatively small business should be allowed to act within its owner's beliefs. To be clear this is regarding refusing to print the message but it would not allow a business to refuse to serve someone just because of their sexuality. That to me is the compromise. And ultimately the simple thing to do is just take your business elsewhere.

I should further add that I do agree with gay marriage after all it's not like it would affect me. However the way this issue has come out hurts my opinion of certain aspects of the gay community more than it does the bakery as it shows no understanding of others views the very same thing that the gay community suffered from particularly in the past. A compromise and balance is needed and it does seem that Gareth Lee would actively suppress others views if they go against his own.
 
This of course is further complicated by the position in Northern Ireland that gay marriage is illegal, so printing a support of gay marriage is actually supporting an illegal position.

Not recognised in law =! illegal.

Gay marriage is not "illegal" in Northern Ireland, it just currently isn't recognised. You can perform a gay marriage in NI if you want, the police won't smash the door in with riot gear and arrest everyone there, it would just have no legal basis for that union to be recognised.

If gay marriage was "illegal" then they would have border police arresting married gay couples from other countries as they get off the boat.

So no the cake wasn't supporting any illegality, it was supporting a change in the law to recognise something that currently isn't.
 
Not recognised in law =! illegal.

Gay marriage is not "illegal" in Northern Ireland, it just currently isn't recognised. You can perform a gay marriage in NI if you want, the police won't smash the door in with riot gear and arrest everyone there, it would just have no legal basis for that union to be recognised.

If gay marriage was "illegal" then they would have border police arresting married gay couples from other countries as they get off the boat.

So no the cake wasn't supporting any illegality, it was supporting a change in the law to recognise something that currently isn't.

Not everything that is illegal involves police.

Illegal =! Criminal.
 
If you could point out which law makes gay marriage illegal in Northern Ireland then?
If you could point out where I said it did?
Either way, if you performed a gay marriage ceremony in NI today you wouldn't suffer any police, court or civil action. The union would just carry no legal weight.

I know. I wasn't disagreeing with that, I'm just pointing out that illegal =! criminal, as it's only such where the police will get involved, typically.
 
If you could point out where I said it did?


I know. I wasn't disagreeing with that, I'm just pointing out that illegal =! criminal, as it's only such where the police will get involved, typically.

So nothing that was really relevant to the thread? :)
 
This of course is further complicated by the position in Northern Ireland that gay marriage is illegal, so printing a support of gay marriage is actually supporting an illegal position.

Incorrect terminology.

It is also worth bearing in mind that Ashers was likely deliberately targeted by Gareth Lee as he is a gay activist and Ashers would be known as a Christian Bakery that would likely have issues with the order. So this situation was deliberately brought about by Gareth Lee and was not a normal order.

Have you any evidence to suggest this? As it hasn't been mentioned at any point or stage of any reporting or any events? I wasn't aware Asher's was a Christian bakery. Were you? I am still not convinced that it is either. It may have managers or owners who follow some form of Christianity, but how that makes it a Christian bakery is beyond me. Is there reasoning for this?

Ultimately regardless of whether people agree with others beliefs we all need to attempt to accomodate and comprimise as far as possible. I think Ashers as a relatively small business should be allowed to act within its owner's beliefs.

I might be wrong, but I thought they have 14 bakery's?
Hardly small business.
 
I quite enjoyed this read directed at everyone involved.
http://paulrobinsonwrites.com/2015/05/18/where-was-jesus-in-the-ashers-case/

Why no one mentioned Jesus in the Asher’s Case.


When there is any debate engaged in the public sphere on the role of religion or conscience or rights there is a lot of talk of belief. How beliefs shape the way we live and act, what we think is right or wrong and how that manifests itself in how we treat each other. Yet, in the midst of all the media reporting and blogging and tweeting about the Asher’s case there has been one voice that has not been mentioned by Christians in all the furor.

Jesus.

Now before I lose you, and maybe I’ve already lost some of you, this is not an attempt to get you to believe one side over an other. This is not an attempt to bring you round to one understanding or to lay out an array of Bible verses to support or reject gay marriage. It is simply my attempt at bringing the central Christian message that Jesus came to share of Peace, understanding, Grace and Love for all people, back into focus in this conversation.
Stay with me, you may just be surprised.
Let me explain.

As a Christian my primary goal has to be to live in a way that not necessarily directly mimics the way Jesus lived but to mimic the principles that he exhibited in His interactions with normal people on His journeys prior to and also after his death. To copy a life that sought to show people what truly being alive feels like; to show how we can creatively live in ways that allow everyone to be part of something that includes but is so much bigger than themselves.

If we were to study Jesus life, we’d see that He rarely took concrete stances on issues like many of us feel is our Christian duty today. He didn’t protest, He didn’t refuse to speak with certain people, He didn’t gloat. What He did was to see what was going on above and beyond any issue and dig deep into the root of what it means to be a human with all our flaws, especially our flaws. He questioned His own religion, He remained calm when dealing with those who thought He was a threat, He got angry only with the religious. He was never defensive.

Yet why do many of us who claim to be followers of His teachings insist on maintaining such a posture?

One reason is I believe is, that Christians have allowed our beliefs to become more important than the reason for the belief. (Tweet This)

Where you stand on gay marriage determines how welcoming or how apprehensive we are towards each other.

Take for instance, the time when Jesus was found by the Pharisees, the religious fundamentalists of the day, to be picking grain on the Sabbath. A seemingly innocent enough activity, but one which was forbidden by the Law. The very Law that Jesus was brought up on and was the central teaching of His Jewish faith. (Yeah that’s right, Jesus wasn’t a Christian, He was Jewish). Like Jesus put to the Pharisees, what good does is it do for anyone to leave their ox stuck in a well on the Sabbath (least of all the ox, poor thing), just because you’re forbidden to do any work.

When questioned on it, Jesus made the point that the Jewish Law was made for man, not man for the Law. Simply put, these ancient rules were to bless and give life, rather than for us to blindly remain loyal and obedient to the Law.

For Jesus, beliefs were fine until they got in the way of sharing life with others. Or got an ox killed.

This means that when it comes to the Laws and ideals for us to live by as Christians, we are not called to follow them blindly if it means others are oppressed or hurt.

Put another way, Christians don’t need to protect themselves because that leaves us unable to be loving and compassionate.

Sometimes we behave as if loving others and being vulnerable is going to end up with the end of Christianity. (Sidenote, we’ve done a pretty good job at self destruction over the years and we’re still doing alright)

But what does this have to do with the Asher’s case, the broader issue of religious conscience and especially how Christians should approach these types of situations?

To answer this we must first answer a question that I was posed on Twitter several weeks ago.

Would Jesus have baked the cake? Jesus cake

Well, I’m not sure. But I do know that his reaction would have shocked and surprised us. To understand a little about how Jesus would have responded, let’s consider other instances in which Jesus used examples to show us how we are to react to those that we may fundamentally disagree with and the fears that underlie them.

An argument that I have heard throughout the Asher’s trial is that if we’re forced as Christians to support ideals and beliefs that we fundamentally disagree with, then somehow our Christian voices will be completely removed from the public sphere.

Whilst I can understand how one may come to that conclusion, like Jesus demonstrated this is a simplistic and closed view of how we are able to influence our communities for Him.

In one famous illustration, Jesus commanded his listeners to not just carry a Roman soldier’s bags one mile, which was well in the right of the Roman soldier to demand, but to walk a further mile. Something that would have made the soldier a very naughty boy (Well done if you get this reference).

What Jesus was doing here was showing another way of reacting to someone rather than being defensive. We could very easily read this as Jesus demonstrating total and complete agreement with the way the Romans ruled the country since He was willing to go further than He was required. Yet, Jesus suggestion of walking the extra mile did not mean that He was asking His listeners to simply bow down and lay down their beliefs and morals, but like we have already seen, as a way of showing that we don’t need to fight for our beliefs.

Our beliefs aren’t what change the world, it’s our actions that do the talking. (Tweet This).

Unfortunately because of the Asher’s case, many outside the church, LGBT or otherwise will know exactly where many Christians stand on homosexuality but will not have witnessed very much of the love we’re called to show to the world.

Jesus example of the Roman soldier shows us that even if we are forced to work and serve (or bake a cake) for those who we completely disagree with, there is a more imaginative and creative way of reacting.

In this case I think that Asher’s had a wonderful opportunity to do just that. But I don’t blame them for not taking it. We’re just not used to this type of thinking in the church. We are afraid of thinking outside the box, or loving others in surprising ways.

We’re so consumed with what we believe about something and making sure that that isn’t compromised that we fail to see that all that demanding our rights to be heard and obeyed leads to, is our love for others being compromised.

Another fear is that a defeat for Asher’s will open up a whole can of worms which would allow those who are intent on causing trouble to demand services from others, simply to cause them pain. Even if this would be true, there is one example from Jesus life that shows what a wonderful opportunity this would be to bring healing.

Along with the previous example of carrying a Roman Soldier’s bags two miles instead of one, Jesus, shockingly and puzzlingly suggested allowing someone to hit you twice. You know, because there’s nothing worse than having just one side of your face in pain.

This has often been taken to mean that as Christians we are to let people walk over us in this world as if God is biding His time and in the end will smite our enemies for being a dick towards us. But this isn’t the Old Testament we’re living in.

What Jesus is doing here, is cleverly showing us that by allowing someone to hit us twice we can ultimately alter perceptions of hate into Peace. One slap to the face, using the outside of the hand signified a stance of control over you. Effectively showing the person being hit who exactly is in charge. But rather than offering the other side of your face as a way of cementing that control, it would be essentially forcing your oppressor to punch you. A significant move, only when we understand that for Jesus listeners, they knew this meant that you were equals. As you only reserved using the inside of your hand to hit someone on a par with you.
So what does this have to do with Asher’s. If we have a cream pie jammed into the side of our face, turn your cheek for a banoffee?

Like carrying bags for a Roman soldier, it means there are more imaginative ways to deal with those who we feel, whether it’s true or not, are persecuting us.
Jesus had so many opportunities to turn down his Love for those that stood fundamentally against the faith He grew up with. He had dinner with Zacchaeus, a tax collector which was the worst type of job for a Jew, as it meant cheating your own people out of money for “the man.” He gave a woman caught in adultery, something that demanded by Law for her life to be taken, freedom and hope. He promised a Samaritan (big enemies of the religious establishment) woman, everlasting life. He healed the daughter of a soldier of the oppressive Roman government.

What religious stance He was “supposed” to take in regards to Samaritans or people who slept with others spouses or Israel’s enemies, wasn’t Jesus chief motivation for His actions towards them. That’s why He was such a threat to the religious; He didn’t act the way He was “supposed” to. He saw the bigger picture.

The way he acted towards these people went against everything He was supposed to believe in. But ultimately the most important belief for him was Love.
And Jesus saw something else equally important. He saw that we’re all really the same. Jewish, Roman, Protestant, Catholic, straight, gay, not sure, male, female, baker, candlestick maker.
Whatever the final verdict from the Asher’s case, there is no winner. The lines are wonderfully and fantastically blurred. We’ve had quite enough of that in Northern Ireland. This is not an Us V Them case.
And this is exactly what ties all the examples from Jesus life that I have used together. Jesus, time and time again with subtle, creative, beautiful ways, broke down this decisive and dangerous idea of Us and Them. He blew open the expectations of what it means to be His follower. And what it meant to be for someone to be your “enemy”.

God is not on the side of Ashers. God is not on the side of the LGBTQ community. God is on the side of all.

He doesn’t operate in the ways in which we have regularly and aimlessly fought to protect.
It is time for Christians to really stand up for what we believe in.
But that is not what we believe about homosexuality. But Love and Hope and acceptance.
For all.
 
Incorrect terminology.



Have you any evidence to suggest this? As it hasn't been mentioned at any point or stage of any reporting or any events? I wasn't aware Asher's was a Christian bakery. Were you? I am still not convinced that it is either. It may have managers or owners who follow some form of Christianity, but how that makes it a Christian bakery is beyond me. Is there reasoning for this?



I might be wrong, but I thought they have 14 bakery's?
Hardly small business.

Unsure how to multi-quote properly so forgive the way it is quoted.

Regarding terminology I think you're just nitpicking, in N. Ireland gay marriage cannot occur thus that aspect of it is not legal. Yes you could get married elsewhere in the UK and then live in N. Ireland with no problems. Anyway I see no problem with gay marriage after all people should be left to live their lives the way they want as much as possible if it does not impact on others, and marriage to me is basically about formalising love in law the sex of the person to me doesn't prevent love so why should they not be allowed to marry.

Gareth Lee is an activist, activists go after targets with an aim, namely to try and promote their cause / get attention by getting a rise out of something. There would be no publicity in going to a bakery that had no issue, and to this time I am still unaware of the name of the bakery that baked the cake. Afterall where there is no controversy there is no publicity. As for finding out Ashers is a christian bakery you could just read their website about us section. And it would not surprise me if it was better known than that in the community.

The comment I made regarding size is just a thought I had on where to draw a line regarding a business adopting the personal views of its owners, everyone will have different views on this. On a relatively small scale I think sole traders / most partnerships and small companies (Ltd companies basically but depends on size and influence) should be allowed to follow the views on their owners as to some extent it is a personal venture. A larger company should in my view have to be more neutral in such matters partially due to the impact of refused service by such companies and partially due to my opinion that a large company cannot be said to be a small family / friend etc run venture that was set up with the aim of being run to their personal values (multiple shareholders that are unconnected to each other).

Just to reiterate I think Ashers should have just baked the cake regardless of whether Gareth Lee had ulterior motives or not. But I think Ashers should have the right to follow their beliefs also and I think there needs to be compromise. Swinging the pendulum too far to the other way is not a solution as it just discriminates against a different group hence the need for some sort of compromise. As far as I'm aware Ashers were meant to have been polite about the refusal to print the message and apologised saying it went against their beliefs, for me a reasonable person that was not trying to create an issue would have accepted this.
 
Unsure how to multi-quote properly so forgive the way it is quoted.

Regarding terminology I think you're just nitpicking, in N. Ireland gay marriage cannot occur thus that aspect of it is not legal. Yes you could get married elsewhere in the UK and then live in N. Ireland with no problems.

It isn't nitpicking in the context of your other post, you said....

This of course is further complicated by the position in Northern Ireland that gay marriage is illegal, so printing a support of gay marriage is actually supporting an illegal position.

That makes it sound like supporting gay marriage legislation is akin to supporting being able to beat your wife or drive a car after 8 pints of Guinness.

Gay marriage is not illegal in NI, it just isn't recognised as a concept. It is a small but significant difference and makes your point that the bakers were being forced to support illegality false.
 
But I think Ashers should have the right to follow their beliefs also and I think there needs to be compromise.

Ashers doesn't have any beliefs nor right to follow any as it is not a human being it is a business. If you run a business then you have to accept the legislative environment that you work in.
 
The comment I made regarding size is just a thought I had on where to draw a line regarding a business adopting the personal views of its owners, everyone will have different views on this. On a relatively small scale I think sole traders / most partnerships and small companies (Ltd companies basically but depends on size and influence) should be allowed to follow the views on their owners as to some extent it is a personal venture. A larger company should in my view have to be more neutral in such matters partially due to the impact of refused service by such companies and partially due to my opinion that a large company cannot be said to be a small family / friend etc run venture that was set up with the aim of being run to their personal values (multiple shareholders that are unconnected to each other).

One thing that gets trotted out a lot is that Ashers, as a business doesn't have any beliefs. This is a fallacy. Nobody seems to have an issue with the large number of corporates who publically profess their belief in the redefinition of marriage. There is a referendum in Ireland this Friday on the redefinition of marriage.

Google came out in support with this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuaDPZINJc4

If Ashers can't have an opinion then neither can Google, or for that matter any of the other companies that seem to have very strong beliefs in this regard.
 
Nor, as I showed earlier are they following Christian Beliefs which extend far beyond feeling a bit icky about what two people of the same sex do in their bedrooms or what they call their relationship.

If they were being true to their religion, they should also refuse to make cakes for anyone that is remarrying (Mark 10:11–12), psychic/magician conventions (Leviticus 19:31), events where women might wear revealing clothes & jewellery conventions (Timothy 2:9), any event where people aren't wearing hats (Leviticus 10:6), a party catered with French cuisine (Leviticus 11:28–29), tattoo conventions (Leviticus 19:28), a church event with a female speaker (Corinthians 14:34), any event held by Gillette (Leviticus 19:27), and they shouldn't serve pork products like their cheese & ham bake (Leviticus 11:4), burgers (Leviticus 3:17) or anyone who is ordering too much food (Proverbs 23:2).

They also need to explain why they are open on Sundays (Exodus 31:14–15).

So given the Bible creates sins of tons of activities we take for granted today, and some that Ashers directly contravene, how can they claim their reluctance to fulfil an order supporting gay rights is in anyway linked to their Christian beliefs?

How can anyone genuinely think that Ashers' issue with gay marriage is due to devout following of scripture and not a bigoted position they hold which they are attributing to their religion after the fact as justification?
 
How can anyone genuinely think that Ashers issue with gay marriage is due to devout following of scripture and not a bigoted position they hold which they are attributing to their religion after the fact as justification?

They can't. Unless they too are a bigot Christian "I put the fun in" fundamentalist.
 
Back
Top Bottom