[News] "Support Gay Marriage" Cake Row

[Razzoo]

Latest figures from the BBC

View attachment 101199

Questions will now be asked as to whether the Equality Commission was right to spend more than £250,000 of public money on this case.
DUP Ian Paisley MP said he has written to the Northern Ireland Secretary calling for a review of the organisation's funding.

The commission backed Mr Lee, who ordered the "gay cake" but was refused.

Four years later, the Supreme Court has ruled it was not a case of discrimination.

Ashers bakery has spent more £200,000 on the case. It is being paid by The Christian Institute, a charity and lobby group.

The cake at the centre of the dispute would have cost £36.50.

It has proved to be the most expensive cake order in UK history.

He should have just thought to himself, well **** you I will take my money elsewhere. Thus saving everybody a load of ballache and cash.

 

[Jim D]

Yes and no. If the baker hadn't taken the case to the Supreme Court, the legal precedent would have been set, as the High Court had originally ruled in favour of the customer.

Now, here's a bit of 'whataboutery' for those with an interest in the law: let's suppose that the Equalities Commission decide to appeal to the ECJ, and they overturn the Supreme Court ruling. What will happen in the future when we're out of the EU (and outside the reach of the ECJ)? Will it revert to the SC judgement?

 

[Jim D]

He should have just thought to himself, well **** you I will take my money elsewhere. Thus saving everybody a load of ballache and cash.

There's a lot of lawyers having their Cake and eating it right now.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's very fashionable to support gay marriage, but there are billions of people in the world that don't. Catholics, Muslims and a lot of C of E, are against gay marriage.

I think it should be remembered that people are entitled to their views, and shouldn't be told they are outdated.

Then I don't understand why they don't campaign for the repeal of the 1836/1949 Marriage Acts as well. Long gone are the days when the only definition of a marriage was defined by the church.

 

[vegster]

There is merit on both sides of the case. As a middle aged woman said in a TV interview soon after the Brexit vote "They ( immigrants) all have there bleedin' Uman Rights, Wat about our Uman Rights" ?

 

[banjo]

I don’t like cake. Hope this helps.

 

[Icy Gull]

Why would you be so insistent on having “Support Gay Marriage” on your wedding cake? I’d guess that everyone at the wedding and reception was already converted? So who was the message for? Or has this got more to do with splashing it across social media after the event with all the photos?

Quite pig headed of the guy who ordered the cake to push it as far as he did imo and now he feels like “ a second class citizen”

 

[narly101]

Why would you be so insistent on having “Support Gay Marriage” on your wedding cake? I’d guess that everyone at the wedding and reception was already converted? So who was the message for?

Quite pig headed of the guy who ordered the cake to push it as far as he did imo and now he feels like “ a second class citizen”

This is actually my stance. He's a gay rights activist, and it's my opinion that he used that particular bakery as a means to achieve a notch on his activist banner. If it was me, I'd have just tweeted about it, and gone to the next bakery. If they do decide to take an appeal to the ECJ, I sincerely hope they see the sense that the SCJ provided in their finding.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why would you be so insistent on having “Support Gay Marriage” on your wedding cake? I’d guess that everyone at the wedding and reception was already converted? So who was the message for? Or has this got more to do with splashing it across social media after the event with all the photos?

Quite pig headed of the guy who ordered the cake to push it as far as he did imo and now he feels like “ a second class citizen”

It wasn't a wedding cake. Mr Lee wanted the cake for a political meeting, for the vote on Gay Marriage in NI.

 

[Gwylan]

Now, here's a bit of 'whataboutery' for those with an interest in the law: let's suppose that the Equalities Commission decide to appeal to the ECJ, and they overturn the Supreme Court ruling. What will happen in the future when we're out of the EU (and outside the reach of the ECJ)? Will it revert to the SC judgement?

It would be the same for every other ECJ judgment - it would depend. If the judgment has led to a change in law, as proposed by an Act of Parliament, then it would need another Act to change it. If there had been so such Act, then it would be up to the judge(s) in the case whether to accept the ECJ ruling. My guess is that he or she probably would but it wouldn't be a legal 'gimme' .

 

[Icy Gull]

It wasn't a wedding cake. Mr Lee wanted the cake for a political meeting, for the vote on Gay Marriage in NI.

Ah, thanks I just read the basics

I thought this was just a guy who was about to get married and was trying to sort out the cake.

*leaves thread with tail between legs*

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's very fashionable to support gay marriage, but there are billions of people in the world that don't. Catholics, Muslims and a lot of C of E, are against gay marriage.

I think it should be remembered that people are entitled to their views, and shouldn't be told they are outdated.

They are entitled to their views.....but they are outdated. That’s my view.

 

[GOM]

Then I don't understand why they don't campaign for the repeal of the 1836/1949 Marriage Acts as well. Long gone are the days when the only definition of a marriage was defined by the church.

You can accept things without necessarily agreeing with them. As far as I am aware we are still allowed to form and have our own opinions and should not be berated or sneered at by others with different opinions.

Personally I don't agree with stamp duty, but accept it.

 

[Mellotron]

It's very fashionable to support gay marriage, but there are billions of people in the world that don't. Catholics, Muslims and a lot of C of E, are against gay marriage.

I think it should be remembered that people are entitled to their views, and shouldn't be told they are outdated.

I agree re: not being told you are outdated, but surely you also agree that views should be changeable and not set in stone, that we should be open to new ideas and thoughts in general?

 

[Mellotron]

On balance the court got it right, but then again I'm not sure anyone was forcing their beliefs on any one else.

Well, they asked for a pretty clearly worded political message to be put on the cake - effectively asking the bakers to produce something they do not agree with. For me that is forcing your beliefs on others. Fine for them to be in support of gay marriage, fine for others not to be.

 

[GOM]

I agree re: not being told you are outdated, but surely you also agree that views should be changeable and not set in stone, that we should be open to new ideas and thoughts in general?

I agree too that views should be changeable and not set in stone, that we should be open to new ideas and thoughts in general. This does not mean that all new thoughts and ideas will be adopted.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Ah, thanks I just read the basics

I thought this was just a guy who was about to get married and was trying to sort out the cake.

*leaves thread with tail between legs*

Ha ha. I'm sorry for being pedantic but that was part of the original defence, that it was an objection to a political slogan, rather than discrimination.

 

[Mellotron]

This does not mean that all new thoughts and ideas will be adopted.

Of course not.

 

[pastafarian]

Now, here's a bit of 'whataboutery' for those with an interest in the law: let's suppose that the Equalities Commission decide to appeal to the ECJ, and they overturn the Supreme Court ruling. What will happen in the future when we're out of the EU (and outside the reach of the ECJ)? Will it revert to the SC judgement?

Would it even go to the ECJ? Wouldnt any appeal be to the European Court of Human Rights, which is an entirely different legal system and nothing to do with Brexit anyway.

 

[clapham_gull]

You can accept things without necessarily agreeing with them. As far as I am aware we are still allowed to form and have our own opinions and should not be berated or sneered at by others with different opinions.

Personally I don't agree with stamp duty, but accept it.

But that's not my point. I'm simply highlighting the fact that the church doesn't own the definition of marriage and hasn't done for years.

It's really time for religious zealots of all religions to accept that fact I'm afraid or at least be consistent.

It's somewhat hypocritical to disagree with a same sex marriage and not disagree with a marriage whose God isn't their own. Their narrow view of what a marriage is or isn't is being somewhat narrowly applied.