Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Ashers Bakery Lose Same-Sex Cake Appeal
Common sense at last, they run a business if you bake a cake in Liverpool colours does not mean that you support Liverpool!
They were in the wrong and its about time the accepted it.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Islay. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am inclined to support the court on this one.
Common sense dictates that if you don't want to make a cake with a specific message on it, then you decline the order with an appropriate reason - too busy would suffice, and no harm is done.
While I entirely appreciate the notion of principles being applied, the couple have chased their quarry over a cliff, and enforced their principles to the detriment of the law on this issue of discrimination.
I am sorry that the couple feel unable to see that their attitude has caused them to break the law, and just because they believe that the court decision was wrong is not going to be a reason for the court to overturn it.
Hopefully they will learn from this experience.
Common sense dictates that if you don't want to make a cake with a specific message on it, then you decline the order with an appropriate reason - too busy would suffice, and no harm is done.
While I entirely appreciate the notion of principles being applied, the couple have chased their quarry over a cliff, and enforced their principles to the detriment of the law on this issue of discrimination.
I am sorry that the couple feel unable to see that their attitude has caused them to break the law, and just because they believe that the court decision was wrong is not going to be a reason for the court to overturn it.
Hopefully they will learn from this experience.
jno - //I sympathise with them to some extent: should they be forced to make a Hitler birhday cake if sone neo-Nazi demands one?//
No - but not for the reason of the cake message, but because no-one is forced to make any cake with any message.
It is not their refusal that causes the issue, it is because they refused for discriminatory reasons, and that is illegal.
No - but not for the reason of the cake message, but because no-one is forced to make any cake with any message.
It is not their refusal that causes the issue, it is because they refused for discriminatory reasons, and that is illegal.
so their problem was in accepting the order but then changing their minds - and saying why? Harsh, I think. After all, they got the cake they wanted from someone else, but presumably decided to celebrate their wedding by prosecuting a bakery. And the moral for the bakery is to shut up about their beliefs and lie about why they can't make a cake.
Naomi - // ... but I don’t think the law should compel them to lie about the reason for declining – which is what it is, in effect, doing. //
I think this is less a matter of legal compulsion to avoid the issue (and that is different from actually being forced to lie) than simple common sense.
The bakery could have refused the order, and are not obliged to give a reason why, but common sense - the route of the issue - dictates that with a sense of tact and sensitivity, they find a valid reason not to take the order.
This allows the bakers to ensure that their restrictions based on personal moralities are intact, and that, as Christians, they do not deliberately hurt or upset a customer, with attendant knock-on damage to their reputation.
I think this is less a matter of legal compulsion to avoid the issue (and that is different from actually being forced to lie) than simple common sense.
The bakery could have refused the order, and are not obliged to give a reason why, but common sense - the route of the issue - dictates that with a sense of tact and sensitivity, they find a valid reason not to take the order.
This allows the bakers to ensure that their restrictions based on personal moralities are intact, and that, as Christians, they do not deliberately hurt or upset a customer, with attendant knock-on damage to their reputation.
1/ They took the order and left it for over a week before ringing Mr Lee and telling him they would not do the cake as they did not agree with gay marriage.
2/ it was not a wedding cake it was a cake for a mayoral 'do' to celebrate NI moving forward and a support group's anniversary.
3/ If you are in business you cannot refuse orders if it will discriminate against others.
2/ it was not a wedding cake it was a cake for a mayoral 'do' to celebrate NI moving forward and a support group's anniversary.
3/ If you are in business you cannot refuse orders if it will discriminate against others.
jno - //so their problem was in accepting the order but then changing their minds - and saying why? //
No, their problem was breaking anti-discrimination laws. The reasons why are not the point in law - breaking the law is what counts.
//Harsh, I think. After all, they got the cake they wanted from someone else, but presumably decided to celebrate their wedding by prosecuting a bakery. //
I don't think their celebration and the prosecution would be connected, it infers a nasty vengeful attitude on behalf of the couple.
As I see it, gay people spend enough of their lives suffering prejudices on a daily basis, without someone breaking the law to point out their disapproval of gay marriage.
// And the moral for the bakery is to shut up about their beliefs and lie about why they can't make a cake. //
No, the moral for the bakery is to realise that breaking the law to enforce their beliefs will not be tolerated.
As I have advised, a little common sense, coupled with a level of tolerance and understanding that is the cornerstone of Christian belief, would have avoided this issue coming to court in the first place.
The fact that the bakers appealed and lost would appear to demonstrate that they perceive that their beliefs allow them to flout the law of the land - they do not.
No, their problem was breaking anti-discrimination laws. The reasons why are not the point in law - breaking the law is what counts.
//Harsh, I think. After all, they got the cake they wanted from someone else, but presumably decided to celebrate their wedding by prosecuting a bakery. //
I don't think their celebration and the prosecution would be connected, it infers a nasty vengeful attitude on behalf of the couple.
As I see it, gay people spend enough of their lives suffering prejudices on a daily basis, without someone breaking the law to point out their disapproval of gay marriage.
// And the moral for the bakery is to shut up about their beliefs and lie about why they can't make a cake. //
No, the moral for the bakery is to realise that breaking the law to enforce their beliefs will not be tolerated.
As I have advised, a little common sense, coupled with a level of tolerance and understanding that is the cornerstone of Christian belief, would have avoided this issue coming to court in the first place.
The fact that the bakers appealed and lost would appear to demonstrate that they perceive that their beliefs allow them to flout the law of the land - they do not.
naomi, yes, if that's the outcome it doesn't do much to make the case for civil society. Perhaps the bakers should have offered to pass the order on to a rival company with fewer prejudices, which would have helped the complainants get their cake but would, I suppose still have left them open to prosecution.
I don't want to diminish the rights of gays, but even straights are told occasionally "Sorry, we can't take your order, but have you tried X on the next street?"
I don't want to diminish the rights of gays, but even straights are told occasionally "Sorry, we can't take your order, but have you tried X on the next street?"
Naomi - //jno, //And the moral for the bakery is to shut up about their beliefs and lie about why they can't make a cake. //
That's exactly how it seems to me. //
OK - if the bakers are not Christian enough (irony or what!) to spare the feelings of someone who does not share their beliefs, then they can take the alternative route- accept that they are a business, put their beliefs on the back burner, and make the cake.
If they find that making cakes conflicts with their beliefs, it suggests that they are in the wrong business, which is any business where they are required to do something that conflicts with said beliefs.
That's exactly how it seems to me. //
OK - if the bakers are not Christian enough (irony or what!) to spare the feelings of someone who does not share their beliefs, then they can take the alternative route- accept that they are a business, put their beliefs on the back burner, and make the cake.
If they find that making cakes conflicts with their beliefs, it suggests that they are in the wrong business, which is any business where they are required to do something that conflicts with said beliefs.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.