Originally posted by Paralytic
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Let them eat c*** part 193
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Let them eat c*** part 193"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
That is a good point. It was the message on the cake, not the person requesting the cake, that was being refused.
If Mr Lee had asked for "Happy Birthday Brian" and the bakery refused because they didn't want to serve a gay person then there'd be a case.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Hmm. Maybe I will order a cake with a big lady bum in pink icing for my next birthday,
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View Post(cake that is).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444 - but to save you the trouble:
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostIt's a very old case but IIRC (anyone?) the 'customer' targeted the bakery knowing it would cause ructions, they didn't innocently order a cake and get refused.
Leave a comment:
-
It's a very old case but IIRC (anyone?) the 'customer' targeted the bakery knowing it would cause ructions, they didn't innocently order a cake and get refused.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
Seems odd to me as well. It was highlighted in the case that it is the cake not the person. They didn't not serve him because he was gay, they wouldn't have made the cake if a straight person had ordered it either so they didn't discriminate against the gay person ordering it. This is purely down to the message on the cake so I can't see a problem with them refusing to print the message, be it gay marriage or something untasteful or obscene. I'm sure any baker of any faith would have a problem making a cake with a slogan on that is against their religious beliefs. If I ordered a cake from a Muslim or Jewish bakers that said 'I love pork pies' am I being discriminated against when they kick me out? No I'm not. I've just picked the wrong business for my requirements and I move on to to the next one that will. Maybe a bit of an extreme example as the gay marriage one is borderline in this day and age but the principle is still sound.
If Mr Lee had asked for "Happy Birthday Brian" and the bakery refused because they didn't want to serve a gay person then there'd be a case.
Leave a comment:
-
Agree with LM. When it a case of one person's rights against another's we should surely take account of personal space. The baker should not be forced to do something against his own beliefs.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostI struggle to see this as a discrimination case. Even though religious beliefs were the reason for refusing to make the cake, there is nothing that says a company is required sell you one of their products on demand.
It seems to me that Mr Lee is discriminating against the bakery for refusing consider their religious and political beliefs. Perhaps if people were more understanding of the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs, there'd be less suing and more tolerance.
Leave a comment:
-
I heard the headline then eventually heard this:
"Because he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the application was inadmissible," it added.
What a waste of bloody money taking to the European Court of Human Rights.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Yesterday 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
Leave a comment: