I'm not saying that he sued them under contract law either, but that contract law is applicable in establishing the basis on a clear violation of his rights. Its essential to the case.

'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons

Which they did. They clearly violated the basis of sexual equality, by refusing to honour a contract on the basis of its relationship to gay marriage, whilst they admitted they would have produced one for straight marriage without question.

The contract element is essential for proving they entered into business and then broke a contract on the basis of the gay content.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Odd that the law is allowed to treat them differently (i.e. one's legal, one's not) yet a baker isn't.

Quite a few americans under 40 are sufficiently open minded enough to consider the possibility of getting stoned on a regular basis so perhaps the Irish are following the trend to be open minded and have little faith.

See Martin Allen QC dismissal of the idea that the case is about a person being gay.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

If that is the case, Martin Allen QC agrees with me; if the case is not about zealot Lee being gay how could Ashers have been guilty of discriminating against him because of his sexual orientation - that is what they were prosecuted for.

Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.46pm)

I foolishly copied Jamie naming Mr. Allen as Martin.

I used the word 'zealot' as per the definition "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

From what you are saying, it appears that Ashers would be guilty of discrimination if the person asking for the cake had been straight rather than gay, and that the discrimination lies in the message not the messenger.

Gay bigot ["a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"] Gareth Lee, sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. (The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'.) From what you say, Ashers discriminated against the message, so did not discriminate against Lee.

We are now in the strange situation where a court in a Province has decided that refusing to write an equal marriage slogan on a cake is against equality, while equal marriage itself is illegal in that Province!

Interestingly, earlier this year in Denver USA there was a similar case. A bakery accepted an order to bake a cake but refused to decorate it with the slogan "God hates homosexuality." A complaint was filed that the buyer was discriminated against because of his religion. It was ruled that the bakery was within their rights to do so on the grounds that the bakery would deny any such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.

Edited by derben (27 May 2015 10.41pm)

....................................................

That's all well and good and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.But,my point was aimed at your characterisation of Lee as a "zealot" when the same thing could perfectly reasonably (or not) also be said of the owner who gave evidence.

Similarly it is interesting that you now make a further negative reference to Lee as a bigot (though there is no suggestion Lee has treated or acted towards anyone less favourably because of their religious views or sexual orientation,so perhaps betraying your own prejudices against Lee) when the phrase (using your quoted definition) might more aptly be applied (If appropriate to use at all in relation to this matter) to the owner,who plainly,on the facts,did treat someone less favourably because of a sentiment they wished expressed on a cake which concerned equality based on grounds relating to sexual orientation (note that the extract from the legislation you quote from says "grounds of sexual orientation";it doesn't say "grounds of the sexual orientation of the person treated less favourably".

As to your point about Robin Allen's submission, I think he's right that as a matter of law,you can be liable for discrimination if you carry out a discriminatory act.That act does not have to be as a matter of law based on the sexuality of the customer in this case who asked for the message to be put on the cake.I'm not gay but the same would apply if I was refused a requested message in favour of legalising gay marriage on a cake.The offending act is discriminating against me (as a customer) on the basis of treating whether you put the message on the cake or not differently because of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation,ie you refuse to put the message on because you treat it differently because of its content on that basis.Another way of looking at it is a theoretical example of a shop refusing an order for a message on a cake saying "black people should be treated the same as white people " on grounds of the owners' beliefs.It wouldn't necessarily I think,as a matter of legal principle, automatically make it not an instance of unlawful discrimination if the person ordering the cake was of WASP heritage.

The customer would be the recipient of the discrimination,since they would be treated differently to other customers because of the owners' views on race,or in the N Ireland case,sexual orientation ,so they as a customer had been discriminated against by the owners for reasons of race/sexual orientation.

Though bear in mind,Robin Allen was purely making a legal submission that the business could be found to have acted in an unlawful manner even if they didn't refuse the order on the basis the customer was gay.I haven't read the full judgement,so,I can't say the precise reasons given for the decision in this instance by the Judge.It will be interesting to see if its appealed given the decision was made by a District Judge and they are relatively low down the judicial rankings.

The US case you refer to is slightly different.The shop refused to put the message "God hates Gays" and anti-gay imagery on a cake because it contained derogatory language (plainly not the case in the N Ireland case) rather than because of any religious discrimination against the purchaser,the complainant having argued it was because of religious discrimination against them.

Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 12.56am)

The same thing of course.

Anyway, the charge was that they discriminated against seditious gay activist Gareth Lee, not against 'homosexuality in general'.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 7.22am)

Now,the Judge is also probably a zealot and a bigot in your view,for simply ruling on the law of the land!

As is also probably the barrister in your view for simply presenting legal argument on behalf of the client he was instructed by!

The Judge and barrister are about as much zealots and bigots as you are an admirer of the government in Venezuela.

Say no more

Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.36am)

Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue...

The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not.

On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie:

"There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.”

Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am)