Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Irish Commission Rules Bakery Was Right Not To Bake Anti-Gay Cake 2017-07-25 04:31:22 Post No. 134842810
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Irish Commission Rules Bakery Was Right Not To Bake Anti-Gay Cake 2017-07-25 04:31:22 Post No. 134842810
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: gaywedding.jpg (173KB, 976x651px) Image search:
[Google]
173KB, 976x651px
Irish Commission Rules Bakery Was Right Not To Bake Anti-Gay Cake
Anonymous
2017-07-25 04:31:22
Post No. 134842810
[Report]
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-bakery-s-refusal-of-anti-gay-marriage-cake-not-discrimination-1.3165211
A Co Dublin bakery did not discriminate against a man when refusing to bake a €700 cake with an anti-gay marriage message, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled.
In May of last year, the man placed a cake order with the bakery with the words: “BY THE GRACE OF THE GOOD LORD, I (name redacted), that in my honest opinion – ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IS A PERVERSION OF EQUALITY and the 34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution should be REPEALED.”
The man told the WRC hearing he was taking the action against the bakery under the Equal Status Act in response to a Belfast court case which had found that Ashers bakery had discriminated against a gay man when refusing to take an order a “Bert and Ernie” cake with a pro-gay-marriage message.
The man said he placed the order both to test and “balance out” the Ashers case.
In his ruling, Mr Barrett said that the complainant “must prove that he has been treated less favourably than another person because of his religious beliefs”.
He said prima facie evidence was not heard to prove the bakery refused the order on religious grounds and, accordingly, the complaint failed.
>>
>>134842810
While cucked, it is the bakery that is losing here.
>>
>>134842810
>€700 cake
That must be one hell of a cake.
>>
>>134842810
The moment that citizens are not granted equal protection under the law, the law is no longer lawful.
Fucking progressives have no concept of intellectual consistency.
>>
>>134843014
wedding cakes are overpriced bullshit
>>
>>134842810
>on religious grounds
So if an atheist hates fags, it's all cool?
>>
>>134843196
The court ruled the bakery didn't refuse to make the cake because he is a Christian:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/baker-wouldnt-make-anti-gay-cake-cleared-discrimination-charge/
Bonus:
They've tried this shit in the U.S. too and L O S T:
In this case the bakery was owned by a Catholic woman I believe:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.
On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."
He told the civil rights agency he ordered the cakes with the imagery and biblical verses to convey that same-sex marriage is, in his words, "un-biblical and inappropriate."
Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.
Silva told the civil rights agency that she also told Jack her bakery "does not discriminate" and "accept[s] all humans."
>>
>>134842810
Time to bring back Irish Al-Queid-I MEAN THE IRA! But with a better ideology.
>>
>>134842810
bump
>>
>>134842810
bump
>>
File: 20070514[1].gif (33KB, 468x461px) Image search:
[Google]
![20070514[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/I9DZ8mv.gif "20070514[1]")
33KB, 468x461px
SO if I am to understand the op, the bakery CAN discriminate if it's because of religious reasons that they themselves have, but NOT just because they themselves just don't approve of something on its own merit.
Why should the belief that your prejudice is mandated by a higher power be a factor of a law?
Why should 'Fuck those people' be any less a protected expression than 'Fuck those people because God says so'?
>>
>>134847117
No because there was no evidence they discriminated against him for being a Christian but rather for wanting a derogatory message. Same as the Azucar Bakery case:
>>134843296
>>
>>134847273
>In his ruling, Mr Barrett said that the complainant “must prove that he has been treated less favourably than another person because of his religious beliefs”.
That means that if he could PROVE his expression of 'Fuck guys' was a purely religious belief, then denying him the cake would be discriminating against his beliefs
Even if that's incorrect, what I'm saying is that I don't see why the law should hold religious beliefs as worth protection and laws against discrimination where any other belief isn't
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3