Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used......In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such.

The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus.

I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island.

Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with.

Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality.

For me, this just goes too far and once again I'm alienated just a little bit more from this increasingly feminised society.....Whilst knowing that for a different section of people they feel less alienated...Depending upon the time and place you live in I guess that's just how it is......I think a society where businessnss are forced to trade with those they don't wish isn't a particularly good state of affairs.....But hey ho.

On the disabled point:
Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life.

Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not.

I was under the impression Jamie that a business can't put up a message saying, 'no homosexual promotional messages allowed'.

The fact that MENSA has an entry requirement doesn't change the fact that its discriminating against those born less intelligent.......It's just 'accepted prejudice'......Pwople born less intelligent had no choice just like the majority born gay...Does society allow private groups to set up clubs which specifically say 'no gay people' allowed?

I'm not particularly against MENSA I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of society.

So can you point to specific instances of bias from the Judges ruling, that are unreasonable and unlawful or mistakes?

Hmm I'd expect a judicial review then of the case, if its based not on the evidence, you should lodge an official complaint, highlighting the errors in the justices interpretation of evidence etc.

Stand up for your straight rights and all that.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.38pm)

Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage.

Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect

The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation.

Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation.

Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment.

Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence.

If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place.

What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm)

Funny that spiel-burg.
Nearly four hours later you go on to say "Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage.

Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect

The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation.

Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation.

Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment.

Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence."

So how could "they" have raised this issue, if somebody else took the order. Somebody who knew "they" would have a problem with it. Sounds to me like it was more a fear not to offend, that has resulted in others being punished for having a certain belief/stance on things.
And before you blurt out a load more spiel about how certain legal technicalities put the case in favour of a man who was told somebody wouldn't wright a message on a cake for him. Just think about that. They are now being punished, for not writing a message, on a cake. Unbelievable jeff!

What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm)