Restore Britain.

Wisbech Eagle said:
It had nothing to do with them endorsing it. That was just the excuse used. Everyone knows that they don’t endorse it. Homosexuality was made legal in Northern Island in 1982 and nobody is breaking the law by asking for a message to be prepared for them about it.

This action was solely about discrimination. They refused to supply something because they personally disagreed with it. They though didn’t own the cake, or the message. They were no different to any other contractor working in any other industry. Signwriters don’t own signs nor do bill board posters own the posters. They just assist in making and displaying them.

They got away with it with the assistance of a devious legal manoeuvre by the scurrilous group they used to represent them. That’s what was being targeted by the likes of the Equality Commission, which suffered the disappointment of losing in the Supreme Court. For which there is only one remedy. To amend the law. That will happen. When is another matter.
Click to expand...
Being homosexual has never been illegal in the UK. Homosexual sexual acts such as sodomy were illegal.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Rubbish. Discrimination would have been refusing to sell him the cake which they didn't.
Do you honestly believe a Halal baker would decorate a cake celebrating Israel?
Click to expand...
They did refuse to sell him the cake! They might have been prepared to sell him an alternative but not the one they had contracted to make.

Any baker, whatever their religious beliefs, or none, who offers to make cakes to the customer’s specification, accepts an order but then refuses for any reasons other than technical impossibility or force majeure would face the same problems here. In majority Muslim countries things may well be different.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
They did refuse to sell him the cake! They might have been prepared to sell him an alternative but not the one they had contracted to make.

Any baker, whatever their religious beliefs, or none, who offers to make cakes to the customer’s specification, accepts an order but then refuses for any reasons other than technical impossibility or force majeure would face the same problems here. In majority Muslim countries things may well be different.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. They refused to decorate a cake with a message endorsing same sex marriage which was illegal at the time.
The Supreme Court found that Ashers were entitled under articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to refuse to produce a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.

"In majority Muslim countries things may well be different".
Gee, you think?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
No, they didn't. They refused to decorate a cake with a message endorsing same sex marriage which was illegal at the time.
The Supreme Court found that Ashers were entitled under articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to refuse to produce a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.

"In majority Muslim countries things may well be different".
Gee, you think?
Click to expand...
Firstly, same sex marriage wasn’t illegal. It wasn’t possible until it was permitted. Anyone going through a ceremony would have performed an invalid act. It would not have been recognised but couldn’t have been illegal.

Secondly, asking anyone to produce something with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage” isn’t illegal. It’s campaigning. The same applies to printers producing signs or posters. Not just cake bakers. The cake, and its message, wasn’t theirs. Only the ingredients and their time were. If you cannot separate your personal beliefs from your duties to your customers then you ought not be in business. Whether it was Mr Lee’s sexuality or the message that caused the refusal it was still discriminatory.

I know what the SC held. It is very convoluted and spends a lot of time on the earlier judgements and whether the Courts followed correct procedures. Yes, the Asher’s bakery’s rights to hold opinions are considered under the Convention but their judgement turned much more on whether, under NI law, discrimination was proven. With this being very specifically defined this was the weakness that the Asher’s Barrister exploited and what has shown that the current law is inadequate to deal with this kind of discrimination.

You can read the whole judgement here:-

 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Firstly, same sex marriage wasn’t illegal. It wasn’t possible until it was permitted. Anyone going through a ceremony would have performed an invalid act. It would not have been recognised but couldn’t have been illegal.

Secondly, asking anyone to produce something with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage” isn’t illegal. It’s campaigning. The same applies to printers producing signs or posters. Not just cake bakers. The cake, and its message, wasn’t theirs. Only the ingredients and their time were. If you cannot separate your personal beliefs from your duties to your customers then you ought not be in business. Whether it was Mr Lee’s sexuality or the message that caused the refusal it was still discriminatory.

I know what the SC held. It is very convoluted and spends a lot of time on the earlier judgements and whether the Courts followed correct procedures. Yes, the Asher’s bakery’s rights to hold opinions are considered under the Convention but their judgement turned much more on whether, under NI law, discrimination was proven. With this being very specifically defined this was the weakness that the Asher’s Barrister exploited and what has shown that the current law is inadequate to deal with this kind of discrimination.

You can read the whole judgement here:-

Click to expand...

The regulations making same-sex marriage legal were signed on 19 December 2019 and came into effect on 13 January 2020.
The key word being legal.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Firstly, same sex marriage wasn’t illegal. It wasn’t possible until it was permitted. Anyone going through a ceremony would have performed an invalid act. It would not have been recognised but couldn’t have been illegal.

Secondly, asking anyone to produce something with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage” isn’t illegal. It’s campaigning. The same applies to printers producing signs or posters. Not just cake bakers. The cake, and its message, wasn’t theirs. Only the ingredients and their time were. If you cannot separate your personal beliefs from your duties to your customers then you ought not be in business. Whether it was Mr Lee’s sexuality or the message that caused the refusal it was still discriminatory.

I know what the SC held. It is very convoluted and spends a lot of time on the earlier judgements and whether the Courts followed correct procedures. Yes, the Asher’s bakery’s rights to hold opinions are considered under the Convention but their judgement turned much more on whether, under NI law, discrimination was proven. With this being very specifically defined this was the weakness that the Asher’s Barrister exploited and what has shown that the current law is inadequate to deal with this kind of discrimination.

You can read the whole judgement here:-

Click to expand...
The usual Wisbechian misrepresentation.
Similar to devil worship and casting spells, men marrying men and women marrying woman were not legally and morally recognised at the time.
It is not illegal to decline to provide a service provided that you do not do so because of someone's so called 'protected characteristics'. Being an agitator for deviant rights is not a protected characteristic.
The Ashers were charged with refusing to participate in Lee's propaganda because he is a homosexual, not with some non-existent contract breach. They were cleared of the charge as it was obvious that they would have also declined to make the cake if a robust heterosexual had ordered it.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
The regulations making same-sex marriage legal were signed on 19 December 2019 and came into effect on 13 January 2020.
The key word being legal.
Click to expand...
Meaning it was then permitted! No one going through a marriage ceremony prior to that would, or could, have been prosecuted for something that didn’t exist. It would simply have been regarded as invalid. “Making it legal” must have been the terminology used to establish the level playing field and offer reassurance. Things can be illegal before they exist, being covered by blanket theoretical bans, and no doubt the lawyers would enjoy a rather pointless argument, but in practical terms anyone who went through a ceremony did so for their own self satisfaction. Society didn’t recognise their act and no one can be prosecuted for doing something before it is legally recognised.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Meaning it was then permitted! No one going through a marriage ceremony prior to that would, or could, have been prosecuted for something that didn’t exist. It would simply have been regarded as invalid. “Making it legal” must have been the terminology used to establish the level playing field and offer reassurance. Things can be illegal before they exist, being covered by blanket theoretical bans, and no doubt the lawyers would enjoy a rather pointless argument, but in practical terms anyone who went through a ceremony did so for their own self satisfaction. Society didn’t recognise their act and no one can be prosecuted for doing something before it is legally recognised.
Click to expand...
From wiki.

Same-sex marriage was illegal in Northern Ireland until 13 January 2020, as the region was the only part of the UK where it was not permitted. While the Assembly passed a motion in 2015, it was blocked by a DUP veto (petition of concern). The ban ended following Westminster legislation in late 2019.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
From wiki.

Same-sex marriage was illegal in Northern Ireland until 13 January 2020, as the region was the only part of the UK where it was not permitted. While the Assembly passed a motion in 2015, it was blocked by a DUP veto (petition of concern). The ban ended following Westminster legislation in late 2019.
Click to expand...
So what!

Wiki is written in a way intended to allow comprehension. It’s not a legal text. A better description would be that same sex marriage wasn’t legal in Northern Ireland until 13/1/20, unlike the rest of the UK. That’s true, but it doesn’t mean it was illegal.

All of which is a complete diversion from the actual issue. Whether the wording on the cake referred to something that was illegal, or simply not yet permitted, makes no difference. You can campaign against something that is currently illegal. All you cannot do, is do it!
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
So what!

Wiki is written in a way intended to allow comprehension. It’s not a legal text. A better description would be that same sex marriage wasn’t legal in Northern Ireland until 13/1/20, unlike the rest of the UK. That’s true, but it doesn’t mean it was illegal.

All of which is a complete diversion from the actual issue. Whether the wording on the cake referred to something that was illegal, or simply not yet permitted, makes no difference. You can campaign against something that is currently illegal. All you cannot do, is do it!
Click to expand...
Olympic level logic chopping.
The Supreme Court and the ECHR disagreed. Case closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top