Exactly.
Common sense needed. It is not at all a black and white situation. Would hate to see blanket legislation here.
The bakers said they would be more than happy to serve this gay man again. It was just the wording on the cake they felt was something they couldn't accommodate.
Is that a gay sex pun in there, Macca?I tell you what is interesting. Not a religious person so just an observation. Christianity is largely mocked where as considering its 2016 the equally far fetched Islam is offered far more credence and accommodated on a far greater scale.
In terms of my earlier post my fellow posters have swayed my opinion. Unless the circumstances are extreme you probably should take the rough with the smooth in terms of your client base
God is a concept by which we measure our pain. John Lennon.“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. Steven Weinberg.
As much as I admire John Lennon for his musical genius, he did have a tendency to let himself down when he professed knowledge regarding the supernatural.God is a concept by which we measure our pain. John Lennon.
As much as I admire John Lennon for his musical genius, he did have a tendency to let himself down when he professed knowledge regarding the supernatural.
Is she more bonkers than Bjork?And his wife was an absolutely loony. There's a great Bill Burr piece on Yoko, I'll try and find it
Yeah. Cheap isn't it.the whole thing is ridiculous - £36.50 for a fucking cake!
Not sure the bakers would be happy to bake a fucking cake either.the whole thing is ridiculous - £36.50 for a fucking cake!
A line does have to be drawn somewhere doesn't it.Presumably these bakers would have endorsed 'adulterers should be put to death' on their cakes as their morality seems guided by this Bronze Age nonsense.
In this case I do actually agree with this verdict and I don't believe it reduces anyone's personal rights but probably shows the bakers to be the bigots they are.
It's a tough one isn't it. Think you can only judge each case on its own merits, but obviously you can't just have anything you want written on a cake.These kinds of cases can throw up some interesting questions. Imagine a black person ordering a cake with 'equal rights for blacks' and the owner refusing because he didn't believe in equal rights for blacks. Obviously this shows him to be racist but I believe this isn't illegal in itself unless acted on ie in discrimination. The baker could argue that he would always serve black customers so he was anti-message not the person. Is this free speech or discrimination?
Does he have to personally incur any of the costs at all?In the end this self righteous twat was purely motivated by a desire to make someone with a different view be exposed. I wish he’d personally have to pay the whole of the costs. It’s a joke a quarter of a million of taxpayer money has been wasted finding a tosser whose got no actual moral point at all.
Nah, that's far too logical.What a waste of time and effort.
If someone wants a message on a cake then so be it, but also the business should have the right to refuse business if it doesn't approve or want to be associated with the message. The gay should have taken his refund and found another shop who were willing to provide what he wanted.
No, wasn't putting it up as an argument, was just suggesting how big a thing it would have been for them to do. For them it's not just words. That was my point.Not sure that if something's against your very being is an argument - after all plenty of unpleasant views are deeply held.
Agree it's not having to comply with another's point of view that the court upheld. I once refused to put up a circus poster on my events billboard because of animal welfare issues so have myself 'discriminated' in this way.
Does he have to personally incur any of the costs at all?
And for that very reason I now intend to sue you.Not sure that if something's against your very being is an argument - after all plenty of unpleasant views are deeply held.
Agree it's not having to comply with another's point of view that the court upheld. I once refused to put up a circus poster on my events billboard because of animal welfare issues so have myself 'discriminated' in this way.
Really annoying and a complete waste of everyone's time too.None
See you in courtAnd for that very reason I now intend to sue you.
These kinds of cases can throw up some interesting questions. Imagine a black person ordering a cake with 'equal rights for blacks' and the owner refusing because he didn't believe in equal rights for blacks. Obviously this shows him to be racist but I believe this isn't illegal in itself unless acted on ie in discrimination. The baker could argue that he would always serve black customers so he was anti-message not the person. Is this free speech or discrimination?
We're up straight after Otium Vs Coventry City Council and Others, court 3.See you in court
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?