Ashers bakery supreme court summary

[jjmack]

I am so very happy to hear that common sense has indeed prevailed and at last people will try and better understand that it was not a decision taken lightly by Ashers, but moreso a decision based on their own religious beliefs, they should never have been faulted for that. I hope this sends a wider message to those intent on forcing their will and beliefs on others, well done Ashers and the family.

The Supreme Court ruling makes it abundantly clear they did not 'discriminate' against the person by refusing to embellish the cake with a slogan, they were and are, totally against 'gay marriage', based on their religious convictions.
A 'common sense' ruling, which I am sure, most reasonable people will accept. 

[BLOOMFIELD]

  WHY, did it have to go all the way to the SUPREME COURT, to arrive at the only " JUST " decision possible. 

[James James]

The original ruling was correct, and for specific reasons,... the present ruling is being applauded on the basis of homophobic opinion and sentiment,... but the situation and circumstances of the case and the nature of the refusal and it's potential and unreasonable societal implications, would have been exactly the same if the issue hadn't had a gay context.

The earlier ruling was based on consideration of legal and societal realities,... which the present ruling seems to have ignored in favour of substituting consideration of the real facts and issues of the case,... for a ruling based on employment law, which was not an issue of the case.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gay-cake-case-why-the-ashers-bakery-ruling-was-correct-1.2850769

[brixmis]

The customer was trying to purchase a service,... he wasn't trying to force or impose his beliefs or opinions about the topic of the slogan on the bakers,... nor was he requesting or attempting to force the bakers to agree with his views on the topic of the slogan.

What part of HE was not discriminated against is it that you can't understand???

[jjmack]

  WHY, did it have to go all the way to the SUPREME COURT, to arrive at the only " JUST " decision possible. 

Because it was 'free of charge' for the complainant to take the case in the first place. Had it not have been free of charge, I very much doubt it would have went anywhere.    At the end of the day I believe Public opinion and the law, favoured Ashers. To think of the consequences of the case being upheld, I think for most decent people would have been horrendous. After all, where would this sort of nonsense have stopped ? Diabolically the tax payer is left with a bill of £250,000 over this nonsense. 

[jjmack]

The original ruling was correct, and for specific reasons,... the present ruling is being applauded on the basis of homophobic opinion and sentiment,... but the situation and circumstances of the case and the nature of the refusal and it's potential and unreasonable societal implications, would have been exactly the same if the issue hadn't had a gay context.

The earlier ruling was based on consideration of legal and societal realities,... which the present ruling seems to have ignored in favour of substituting consideration of the real facts and issues of the case,... for a ruling based on employment law, which was not an issue of the case.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gay-cake-case-why-the-ashers-bakery-ruling-was-correct-1.2850769

Sorry but that just won't wash. Absolutely nothing to do with the case being decided on employment law, but a ruling based on common sense in so far as no one, can be forced by law, to provide or carry out a service which they consciously object to.    Ashers made it abundantly clear they would have refused to carry out this service for anyone. Therefore the case that Lees had been discriminated against because of his sexual orientation was proved incorrect. 

[jjmack]

http://email.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/T/v4000001665da6bde4be3165163e346008/5e33983e581e45660000021ef3a0bcc5/5e33983e-581e-4566-b5dd-79c4374ff618?__dU__=v0oQlZ2XmHtXiWefx_zBr6oSDOdDEyJMNBt1aaocywPHw=

 

[jjmack]

What part of HE was not discriminated against is it that you can't understand???

All of it, perhaps ? 

[gray_marian]

The customer was trying to purchase a service,... he wasn't trying to force or impose his beliefs or opinions about the topic of the slogan on the bakers,... nor was he requesting or attempting to force the bakers to agree with his views on the topic of the slogan.

Utter tosh, in my opinion. This little pip squeak knew exactly what he was doing bringing this case to court I am pleased that Asher's won.  Finally lines have been drawn. This was never about icing a cake. It's about having the fundamental right to not have to do something that offends you.

[misssmyth1]

i agree totally Gray Marian. what happened to our individual  freedom of choice in what we are asked to do. . totally out of all proportion waste of time monies and not to mention the stress  for the baker. .He wanted publicity for his organisation .  he could have gone to another baker. I read he's not going to stop . Is going to take it further?  . none of us are anti anything just want freedom to choose what we do.

[Number26]

If he takes it further is it going to be funded by the equality commission,namely us tax payers,or is he gonna have a whip round the lgbt community for the money,after all he’s doing this for their benefit!!!

[misssmyth1]

Human Rights  movement gone MAD again all for the one side . we'll be afraid to state an opinion on anything soon . but the lawyers must be happy always the ones to profit  I think there should be a cut off point??? especially for something so trivial when there are terrible injustices going on all over the globe  cant think of anything else to add  good luck to Ashers .

[DJ]

If he takes it further is it going to be funded by the equality commission,namely us tax payers,or is he gonna have a whip round the lgbt community for the money,after all he’s doing this for their benefit!!!

The Equality Commission’s role in this has been completed, he’s now consulting with his barrister on his next step. He can appeal to the European Courts but the Supreme Court based their findings on European Laws so he would in effect get the same result. I think I’m correct on this.

[GEMMA]

You are correct, he picked a fight and lost.

[HarryHippo]

Gives truth to that old proverb: ' You cant have your cake and eat it '