Items Found In A Woman's Handbag
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Cake Off?
183 Answers
https:/
The road to common sense is paved with tenners.
The road to common sense is paved with tenners.
Answers
This whole process was never going to be a cakewalk, which in itself raised issues which would end in a verbal bun fight. Still, hopefully not many tiers were shed by those who made a stand and everybody will get their slice.......
11:55 Wed 10th Oct 2018
mushroom at 11:23,
/// i can't understand why the owners of the characters haven't kicked off. the characters were misrepresented on the cake design. they are not - and never have been - gay ///
https:/
//Well yes - that is what they believe//
If they refused to provide this service because they think being gay is wrong, then that is discrimination by the spirit of the law if not the letter.
I understand why the SC has made this ruling but they have effectively created a huge loophole in the anti-discrimination laws which any bigot, especially religious ones, can now use. They've made it effectively unenforceable.
If they refused to provide this service because they think being gay is wrong, then that is discrimination by the spirit of the law if not the letter.
I understand why the SC has made this ruling but they have effectively created a huge loophole in the anti-discrimination laws which any bigot, especially religious ones, can now use. They've made it effectively unenforceable.
I haven' read all of this but...
"He was told on the phone they would not make the cake because they don't believe in Gay marriage.
Why should he not take action emmie?"
Because refusing to make the cake because they do not believe in gay marriage is not discriminatory. Refusing to make it because the customer was gay would be but they didn't do that. The bakery would refuse to make it for anybody who asked so they were not discriminating against this particular customer. The Supreme Court simply came to the conclusion that the lower courts should have done which would have saved the Equalities Commission (funded by the taxpayer) around £250k.
"He was told on the phone they would not make the cake because they don't believe in Gay marriage.
Why should he not take action emmie?"
Because refusing to make the cake because they do not believe in gay marriage is not discriminatory. Refusing to make it because the customer was gay would be but they didn't do that. The bakery would refuse to make it for anybody who asked so they were not discriminating against this particular customer. The Supreme Court simply came to the conclusion that the lower courts should have done which would have saved the Equalities Commission (funded by the taxpayer) around £250k.
And the SC made the point that holding a view - however objectionable it may be to some - is not discriminatory. To discriminate you have to treat people differently on the basis of one of the "protected features" (e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.). The bakery did not do so. It stated (and it was accepted by the court) that they would not make such a cake for anybody because they did not agree with the sentiment it was to display. They wouldn't make the cake because they disagreed with gay marriage not because they objected to the customer's sexual orientation.
"Could a printer refuse to print leaflets if he disagreed with the content of the leaflet?"
I don't see why not. It could be argued that (say) only gay people would ask for material supporting gay marriage. But that's not what the SC found. It must be realised that not everybody agrees with everything.
I don't see why not. It could be argued that (say) only gay people would ask for material supporting gay marriage. But that's not what the SC found. It must be realised that not everybody agrees with everything.
grumpy01i
Unicorns don't exist. However, I have seen plenty of cakes with unicorns on them.
Thaland - yes a printer could not be forced to print anything they found objectionable. Once again - the Equalities Act 2010 does not enshrine disagreement with ideas, only people.
If someone went to a bakery asking for a cake to be made emblazoned with 'Keep marriage sacred', they could equally be refused under this ruling.
Unicorns don't exist. However, I have seen plenty of cakes with unicorns on them.
Thaland - yes a printer could not be forced to print anything they found objectionable. Once again - the Equalities Act 2010 does not enshrine disagreement with ideas, only people.
If someone went to a bakery asking for a cake to be made emblazoned with 'Keep marriage sacred', they could equally be refused under this ruling.
Are you sure that's not a My Little Pony cake with a Birthday candle strategically placed that you saw SP1814.Having read a bit about this it seems that this couple were particularly targeted because of their beliefs therefore knowing it would cause publicity.I am in the live and let live party on this issue in general but dislike celebrities Elton John et al ramming it down our throats at any opportunity.
