The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Daniel McArthur...

16% 16% 
[ 12 ]
80% 80% 
[ 60 ]
4% 4% 
[ 3 ]
 
Total Votes : 75

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:40 am

@Tony Bennett wrote:

In the video clip of him speaking at the recent meeting (link in the OP), he says clearly that he does not have an issue with the sexual orientation of his customers - but from time to time he declines to take an order, giving as an example: 'designs with lewd images'.

I have a friend who has a bakery and cake decoration business. I think most people would be shocked at some of the requests he receives for custom designs - for every Despicable Me minnion he produces, there's at least one outsize penis shaped sponge. And I picked one of the more common, milder requests there. I wouldn't dream of repeating some of the other stuff.....

Clearly cake decoration is not a job for the faint-hearted.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:19 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Would I get away with taking legal action against a Muslim baker who refused to make me a Peppa Pig cake? Probably not.

I respect him for putting his beliefs above making a few quid, it would be far worse if he did something against his inner conscience for money IMO.

Anyway, I'm getting fed up with all these legal battles being thrust upon people just because someone else doesn't like their opinion. At the end of the day it's about a cake for goodness sake, NOT a doctor refusing to treat a critically ill patient. It's about time people stopped thinking they can demand to get exactly what they want from whoever they want, smacks of a childish tantrum.
Hear hear!

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:11 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Snipped:

I respect him for putting his beliefs above making a few quid, it would be far worse if he did something against his inner conscience for money IMO
Yes, I couldn't agree with you more about being true to one's inner conscience. Yes, for me too, putting the acquisition of personal or corporate wealth ahead of all else is the root of much that is wrong with the world. However, do you respect equally an individual giving up their income in the UK and going off to fight, for nothing, for ISIS because of their 'belief'?  Chances are you wouldn't...

OK... a baker not wanting to finish a cake and thus upsetting a member of a minority group (for reasons rooted in religion) is not the moral equivalent of a doctor wanting to go and kill people that belong to minority groups (for reasons rooted in religion)... but they are, logically, somewhere along the same spectrum as they both have motives rooted in religious dogma. 

[size=16]It's all to do with the degree of balance between every individual's personal freedom, versus the impact that individual's actions has on others in society.  It's a tough one...There's no black and white answer.  It challenges me...as I have no problem with him refusing to make a cake if he doesn't want to and support him in principle. However, I do have a problem with, yet again, religious belief being a factor in societal conflict. [/size]

Look at it this way...I have a small shop nearby that only sells Halal food. It appalls me that in this day and age people's indoctrination into belief in one or other Sky Wizard means that their food has to be killed in a cruel and painful manner...and it disgusts me that our society allows this cruelty to happen.  But I don't do anything about it.  But, what if my local ASDA wants to only stock Halal food? I could either accept that it's up to ASDA what they do and I could take my business elsewhere... or I could complain.  If it ever happened I think I would complain.  I accept that others will disagree with my concern, and like you respect the 'religious belief' behind it.  Of course, there's no logic behind why I don't complain about one shop but why I would complain about the other... and the scenarios are the same, just on a different scale... but my actions would be different.

As regards this baker... I genuinely don't understand why he is remotely worthy of respect when he's being blatantly arbitrary with what 'beliefs' he cares to have an issue with. As I pointed out in my first post on the subject I have no doubt whatsoever that he has absolutely no problem at all with going against the bulk of the religious commandments contained in the bible, (i.e Women not to wear gold, or pearls; people must not eat prawns; illegitimate children, and their descendents, must not be admitted to church, etc. etc.). He is, instead, cherry picking without a shadow of a doubt.  Who knows?   He may well have been one of those people refusing to decorate a cake with a "pro racial equality" message many decades ago, (& similarly citing the bible and his Lord for that stance)...and I would like to think if he had his actions would have been investigated and challenged. 

Yes, people should be allowed to do what they want and live how they want... but to automatically kow-tow to, (let alone respect) anything and everything as soon as it has the badge of 'religion' behind it is not going to help this world of 7bn people get along and face the many challenges facing Humanity.

Maybe I'm naive...but I can't see why people just can't place at the top of their lives the mantra of 'getting along with each other and being nice', instead of cherry picking bits from a holy book that throughout its text that serves to alienate those who are 'different' from the 'in tribe' that wrote it, (i.e. male heterosexuals).

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:07 pm

OK... a baker not wanting to finish a cake and thus upsetting a member of a minority group (for reasons rooted in religion) is not the moral equivalent of a doctor wanting to go and kill people that belong to minority groups (for reasons rooted in religion)... but they are, logically, somewhere along the same spectrum as they both have motives rooted in religious dogma.

I truly object against this statement. 

According to your "logic" someone who, because of his religious beliefs, gives most of what he has away is the same as someone who wants to kill minorities.

Come on, knitted, not even you believe that I hope.

Your problem seems to be not that he does not want to do it, but why he does not want to do it, which is extremely discriminating.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by comperedna on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:49 pm

To me it is pretty simple. If you set up a business providing a service to the public, you do just that, and don't pick and choose according to your 'beliefs' religious or otherwise. If you don't like that idea, then find some other way to earn your money.

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Gaggzy on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:58 pm

The baker should have told them that they can't have their cake and eat it.  big grin

Or as the judge said to the bigamist, 'You can't have your Kate and Edith.'   clapping

All this doesn't bother me as I stopped eating cake (and all other sweet stuff) six months ago.   high5

Gaggzy

Posts : 488
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2014-06-08
Location : North West.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:59 pm

@comperedna wrote:To me it is pretty simple. If you set up a business providing a service to the public, you do just that, and don't pick and choose according to your 'beliefs' religious or otherwise. If you don't like that idea, then find some other way to earn your money.
Muslim grocery stores should be forced to sell pork??

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:40 pm

@lj wrote:
OK... a baker not wanting to finish a cake and thus upsetting a member of a minority group (for reasons rooted in religion) is not the moral equivalent of a doctor wanting to go and kill people that belong to minority groups (for reasons rooted in religion)... but they are, logically, somewhere along the same spectrum as they both have motives rooted in religious dogma.
My comments in blue
I truly object against this statement.  
... I've already said up-thread it's an emotive subject!

According to your "logic" someone who, because of his religious beliefs, gives most of what he has away is the same as someone who wants to kill minorities.
I think you have misinterpreted the statement. The two people are not the same, I did not say they were the same. What was said was that both examples are, logically, somewhere along the same spectrum as they both have motives rooted in religious dogma. If you break down the 'actors/actions' in the two scenarios down to the simplest of 'cause and effect' processes you get: "A person...for reasons rooted in religion... does/does not do something...then someone is affected".  Does that explain my point an my better?  If so you'll see the two scenarios, when stripped bare of the undeniable emotive implications of comparing cake with murder, are indeed effectively the same. They only differ by what the 'something' is that they either do, or do not, do.

I did make the point of saying that the two scenarios were not moral equivalents. I did that in the hope of avoiding any emotional reaction to the comparison I made. Apologies that I did not stress the point enough.

n.b. As it happens, the 'cause and effect' spectrum, when distilled down to the basics, (as described above), would indeed include someone that gave away all their worldly goods if the reasons were also rooted in religion.  Religion is indeed a motive for both good and ill... but I thought my point was clearly made, (& if not the above should hopefully now explain it a bit better), that it's not a simple dichotomy between 'good or bad'...it's a big grey area.  Indeed, affording people automatic respect for doing X,Y or Z becuase of their religiosity fails to appreciate the fact that one person's moral crusade may not be what others deem to be worthy of respect. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.  No one will argue with giving everything away for religious reasons... (most) will argue against killing someone for religious reasons...but supporting/not supporting something as seemingly innocuous as not lies in the grey area. However, they are all the same from a 'process' perspective, i.e.
"A person...for reasons rooted in religion... does/does not do something...then someone is affected"

Come on, knitted, not even you believe that I hope.
I do believe it... hopefully the above explains the logical thought process behind the argument.  Hopefully no one will now confuse my saying that they are the same from a process perspective as suggesting they are the same from a moral, or an impact, perspective.

Your problem seems to be not that he does not want to do it, but why he does not want to do it, which is extremely discriminating.
...and in that regard I am no different at all to the baker in this story? I fully accept that.

However, whereas the baker has views and ideas based upon the prevailing local cultural interpretation of his religion I, instead, base my values on modern, informed, open-minded, well challenged and 'open-to-challenge' analysis of how Humanity might best get along for the next few thousand years.  Religions, despite the PR we're fed constantly from birth, haven't got a particularly good track record in such things, even when we lived in far more 'tribal' and insular groups.  Now that we are (whether we like it or not) an ever more mixed Global society I fear that, based upon the evidence of the effects of religions throughout history, they'll potentially inhibit and delay Humanity's future development.  In regards to the baker:  If he doesn't want to decorate a cake then that's fine... but to cherry pick a bit out of his holy book, whilst ignoring the bulk of its commandments appears to be a case of
willful ignorance; and willful ignorance shouldn't be 'respected' as an acceptable defence, ( n.b. I think I once read there are over 500 'commandments' in Leviticus, though most religious people only know about the '10 Commandments' from Exodus... though a staggering minority of Christians can even recite 5 of them, let alone all 10!). I simply expect more and think society should instead help to educate its citizens so as they are better informed on such matters.  If that's deemed to be 'discriminatory' against the religious by some, then so be it. Anyway... I must drag myself away and catch up on personalising the afternoon's gift orders or I shall again be burning the midnight oil!  rest assured if I'm asked to engrave anything I don't like I shall let you know... and give my reasons why! :D

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:45 pm

 I shall let you know... and give my reasons why! 

Don't bother, I'm not interested. While you look for what, in your opinion, is the "better" reason, I belief in that everyone has the freedom to live and do whatever fits in his beliefs and conscience, without harming others.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:56 pm

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@comperedna wrote:To me it is pretty simple. If you set up a business providing a service to the public, you do just that, and don't pick and choose according to your 'beliefs' religious or otherwise. If you don't like that idea, then find some other way to earn your money.
Muslim grocery stores should be forced to sell pork??

I bet you won't get an answer on that one.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by BlueBag on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:37 pm

Christian bookshops should be forced to sell copies of Fifty Shades of Grey.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1270
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by BlueBag on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:43 pm

Muslim bakers should be forced to make and sell bread in the shape of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

I think the point is made.

If someone doesn't want to do something petty that goes against their conscience then grow up and find someone who does and leave people who aren't really hurting you alone.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1270
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Smokeandmirrors on Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:10 pm

In reply to knitted I appreciate your answer and think you make some really well considered points even if I or others will disagree with bits of it. My point mainly is that if you take this situation in a basic form it is one persons "will" against another, and as long as here is no violence or deliberate malice, then quite honestly I really think freedoms to make choices should stand. We are supposed to be a society of democracy and freedom of speech and so forth, so I think the baker has the right to be true to himself and the complainer can take his business elsewhere. It is the inflating and antagonising that is my problem in this affair. Freedom to "be" should work for all and not to the particular favour on one side IMO. Life is simply too short.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:07 am

@lj wrote:
Snipped:  I belief in that everyone has the freedom to live and do whatever fits in his beliefs and conscience, without harming others.
I could not agree with you any more... what you've written is a tenet of my own personal values.  Where I think I seem to differ from most is how best to ensure such freedoms do genuinely lie at the heart of society and are protected. The problem, and what I've tried to get across, is that if you have a bunch of people in a room and describe a few scenarios, you'll have a bunch of different views on what was harmful and was not.  My view is therefore that when a complaint is made by someone then 'society' should have the appropriate processes to step in and arbitrate/see if harm has, or has not, occurred.  I therefore see it as not only healthy, but absolutely fundamental, that if we collectively want to protect those personal freedoms then we should all be open to, and proactive in, challenging ourselves/society to regularly check that the balance achieved is as optimal as it can possibly be.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:25 am

To Smokeandmirrors,

Thanks for taking the time to read my points, especially as I know we differ on some points. Without wishing to repeat the posting I just gave to LJ... for me it's all about there being nothing wrong in society checking that society is ploughing a fair furrow when you get two opposing views on what's acceptable or unacceptable. A complaint has been made... and the complainants should be challenged as to the validity of their motives, just as the baker should be challenged as to the validity of theirs, (and, as you will know by my comments, I see falling back on religious motives is a weak argument in this case...but I fully accept others will see it, instead, as a strong argument and disagree with me).  Of course, I'd much rather we live in a world where different people with different views sit down over a cup of tea and talk through their differences, have a damn good debate and either sort things out or amicably agree to disagree... but when that doesn't happen I'm all up for a passionate. logical, protracted, adversarial (though non-physical), challenge... but that's just my competitive streak getting the better of me!
angrypcuser

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by jeanmonroe on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:28 am

EOC 'spending' £10,000 ('costs' to date) 'chasing' £500 'fine'?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 884
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Angelique on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:42 am

I have always thought that proprietors could refuse to sell goods to anyone. They don't even need a reason.

In fact, I can say that an employee of Tesco's refused to serve me as someone else in another queue had been waiting longer than me!

There is no right to buy just because the shop is selling goods.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by aquila on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:46 am

There is a wide range of reader's comments in the DM today. Some of the comments are from gay people who disagree with the EC's involvement. There are a lot of common sense posts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013072/Christian-baker-begins-court-fight-pro-gay-marriage-cake.html

@Knitted...you mentioned something about if your local Asda sold halal meat...Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco all sell halal meat.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:24 am

@jeanmonroe wrote:EOC 'spending' £10,000 ('costs' to date) 'chasing' £500 'fine'?
A 20:1 ratio would seem excessive if that's what it was, but it isn't about chasing a fine.  There's an inevitable and unavoidable cost when society has to 'police itself' when different groups have different views about what is acceptable/unacceptable or an encroachment (perceived or actual) on personal freedoms.  £10,000 does seem high. It would be great if there was a more cost-effective way of doing it that stripped out all the presumable paper-shuffling, tea breaks and all the other bureaucratic overheads... but I'm not sure what the alternative is in such instances.

Anyway, your post got me thinking:  My ex-wife told me at the weekend that she knows someone who works in HMRC and they've been told in no uncertain terms what large unpaid tax bills not to chase!!. So, if simple financial cost/benefit was ever a matter of concern to the powers that be, then they'd easily be able to spend money chasing the vast amounts of unpaid tax owed by the the richest in our society. The ratio of the wage of a lowly admin clerk spending a couple of hours chasing those who owe tens of thousands in unpaid tax would totally dwarf a ratio of 1:20... it's probably be nearer 1:2000 in many cases!!. Just imagine if enough people marched with pitchforks in hand to their local HMRC offices to oppose such blatant malpractice...maybe then society would change for the better!

Anyway... then your post got me thinking again... since several hundred people went to see the baker make his speech what FAR more important things might instead be achieved if those same several hundred people, instead, said "go into a room, talk through your differences between yourselves and come to an amicable arrangement"...and then the several hundred grabbed their pitchforks...and did indeed march to their local HMRC offices demanding change!! We, (me included!), get so distracted by such matters as this we get distracted from the bigger picture. I said up-thread... these stories (baker versus gays/selling straight bananas/what constitutes a British Banger, etc.) always seem to break round about election time. Call me a cynic but they find their way into the press to get us to squabble at a local level, to get us to withdraw into our respective corners and to think more 'tribally'... This distracts us from bothering about the far, far, more important questions that we should be asking at election time.  Yep, "Divide and Conquer"... it's how we're kept from joining together en masse and shaking our flaming pitchforks!

Apologies... I'm straying  offtopic

I think I shall leave this thread... I've waffled enough flag

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Sam S on Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:53 am

This is nothing to do with elections. It is a campaign to enforce homosexuality on our way of life. Every soap has numerous gay characters flouncing about the place, gay couples allowed to marry, adopt children and God help anybody who has the courage to stand up and say..." I believe this is wrong". What next? Incest is ok? Bestiality is ok? Pedophiles are ok? It is another step toward the destruction of the family unit. Anyhoo...rant over..away to work :)

Sam S

Posts : 70
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-06-17
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The 'Gay Cake' County Court case +++ BBC report of DAY ONE

Post by Tony Bennett on Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:58 am

DAY ONE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32063006

Barristers on both sides?

Over a possible fine of a few hundred quid?

This case must be very important to someone! 

Asher's Bakery have to fund their defence.

We, the taxpayers, are funding the Equalities Commission's legal action...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by aquila on Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:49 pm

Hands up any committed Christian on this forum who has given up something for Lent.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by littlepixie on Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:57 am

Putting the gay issue aside I owned three shops for years and years. I was under the impression that a shop was private premises and customers were "invited" to come inside. There is no law that says you HAVE to serve someone in your shop or even let them in. 
Many customers don't realise this and think they have a "right" to enter your premises which they don't. 
Look at nightclubs or pubs. They can refuse entry just on the way you are dressed or if they don't like your face or attitude.

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:02 am

DAY TWO

Ashers gay cake case: Bakery barrister tells court there was 'no discrimination' over order refusal


by Deborah McAleese and Lesley-Anne McKeown for the Belfast Telegraph – 27 March 2015
 


[PIC: Daniel McArthur (General Manager at Ashers Bakery) arrives at Laganside Court in Belfast with his family, and gives a statement to the media before entering court:  Pic Colm Lenaghan/Pacemaker]




[PIC: Complainant, Gareth Lee: centre of picture]  



Ashers face a discrimination case supported by the Equality Commission, after a dispute began when the Christian-run bakery refused a request to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.

There was no discrimination in a Christian bakery's decision to decline an order for a cake bearing a pro-gay marriage slogan, a court has been told.

A lawyer for the family-owned Ashers Bakery said the refusal had been down to the content of the cake and was not connected to any characteristic of the customer.

David Scoffield QC said: "The defendants neither knew nor cared about Mr Lee's sexual orientation or his religious beliefs, if any, or his political opinions.

"The reason why the order was declined was because of the content and had nothing to do with a feature of the person making the order, or those with which he was associated."

Northern Ireland's Equality Commission is taking the legal action against Ashers Bakery on behalf of the gay rights activist customer whose order was rejected.

Gareth Lee, a volunteer member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, claimed he was left feeling like a lesser person when his order, which had been paid in full, was turned down.

Ashers, which is run by the McArthur family, declined the request for a cake with an image of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie below the motto Support Gay Marriage. It had been ordered for a private function marking International Day Against Homophobia last May.

When Ashers refused, the commission, a publicly funded watchdog, proceeded with the legal action.

Describing the case as "complicated", Mr Scoffield branded the legal action as a "knee-jerk" reaction.

If a heterosexual person had requested the same cake bearing the same message they too would have been refused, the barrister said.

Mr Scoffield added: "It was the content of the cake, not the characteristic of the customer or anyone associated with him.

"There was no discrimination in this case."

The case, which has made headlines worldwide, is being heard by District Judge Isobel Brownlie.

Earlier Karen McArthur, a director of the baking firm who took the cake order, acknowledged that she had always known she could not proceed with the request because of her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Mrs McArthur, who has run the bakery with her husband Colin for more than 20 years, said: "I knew in my heart that I could not put that message on the cake."

Mrs McArthur, a member of Dunseverick Baptist Church, revealed that she had been a born-again Christian from the age of seven and had always tried to "please God" with the way she lived her life.

The order was taken to avoid a confrontation and to save the embarrassment, she claimed.

Mr Lee was later contacted by telephone and told apologetically that Ashers could not make the cake.

"I did not want to embarrass him or have a confrontation in the bakery," Mrs McArthur told the court.

She later added: "The problem was with the message on the cake because, as a Christian, I do not support gay marriage."

Nine members of the McArthur family work at the bakery business, which has six branches, employs around 80 staff and delivers across the UK and Ireland, the court heard.

Barrister Robin Allen QC, representing Mr Lee, presented a promotional leaflet which he claimed showed the firm was willing to produce Halloween cakes.

"Witches are hardly consistent with promoting Christian beliefs," Mr Allen said.

Co-owner Colin McArthur was also called to give evidence.

Although he had not provided a witness statement for the proceedings, he described how he had agonised over the moral dilemma but a family decision was made to refuse.

He said they talked about how they could "stand before God" by making a cake promoting gay marriage.

Mr McArthur said: "I spent a day or two thinking it over and wrestling with it in my own heart.

"As far as I can recollect, either on the Saturday or Sunday we were both of the same opinion that my wife and myself, we both of the same mind that we could not proceed and make the cake."

Meanwhile, Daniel McArthur, Ashers general manager, said the decision to decline the order had been made regardless of the legal consequences.

Even though he was unaware of the "ins and outs" of equality legislation, Mr McArthur said he could not compromise his deeply held Christian beliefs opposing gay marriage.

He said: "The reason for the decision was that, as Christians, we just did not feel that putting the message on a cake ... Gay marriage is clearly in contradiction of the Bible.

"We felt as Christians we could not put that message on a cake."

Mr McArthur, a member of the Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, told the court: "We knew the decision in our conscience as Christians was one that we had to make.

"That's why I said to Mum regardless, as Christians we are bound by what we believe.

"This is what we are bound to do."

The court was told Mr McArthur, the eldest of three boys, was appointed general manager at his parents' company two years ago.

He said the family had not taken legal advice but he had telephoned a church elder to "ask his thoughts" on the matter.

"We were not doing it in defiance of the law," added Mr McArthur. "I think it is quite obvious that we do not know a lot of the ins and outs of the law.

"Our Christian faith is of utmost importance to us. It is how we run our lives; it is how we live our lives; it is how we bring up our families...

"Before God, this is something we couldn't make."

Throughout the hearing Karen McArthur clutched her husband's arm. The couple sat beside their son Daniel and his wife Amy in the main body of the court.

On the other side of the large dock, normally used to hold criminals facing trial, Mr Lee sat listening intently, supported by male and female friends.

The public gallery of courtroom number 12 in the large Laganside complex was almost packed to capacity with Christian campaigners as well as gay rights activists.

Same-sex marriage remains a contentious issue in Northern Ireland and attempts to have it legalised have been repeatedly rejected by the devolved Assembly at Stormont.

The cake row has prompted a proposal to include a so-called "conscience clause" in equality legislation.

The Democratic Unionist Party, whose MLA Paul Givan is bringing forward the Private Members' Bill, says businesses should have the right to refuse to provide services they believe could compromise their religious beliefs.

However, Sinn Fein has vowed to veto the move.


Day 1: Ashers gay cake case: If you're in business your door must be open to all, QC tells Belfast court


By Deborah McAleese

The gay activist at the centre of the Ashers Bakery row told a court he felt like a "lesser person" when the company refused to bake him a cake.

As the landmark civil case between religious freedom and equality rights got under way in Belfast yesterday, Gareth Lee said he was left to feel that he "wasn't worthy" because of his sexuality when his order for a cake endorsing gay marriage was cancelled by the Christian-run bakery.

Before the case began, the company's manager Daniel McArthur said he was placing his trust in God.

He added that the company's problem "was with the message not the customer", and said that it went against their "sincerely held beliefs".

Mr McArthur arrived in court with his wife Amy and his mother Karen, a director at the family-run business, to defend allegations of discrimination brought by Mr Lee with the support of the Equality Commission.

The DUP's Edwin Poots and TUV leader Jim Allister joined a large crowd in the public gallery to listen to the case.

Mr Lee's lawyer, Robin Allen QC, told County Court Judge Isobel Brownlie that the law must not be determined "by those who shout loudest".

He said that large businesses like Ashers "cannot be allowed to break contracts with individuals... in a way which is in breach of equality law".

"If that is allowed the rule of law is worth nothing," he added.

The court was told that Mr Lee was a regular customer at Ashers' Royal Avenue store in Belfast. In May last year he wanted to purchase a cake for a forthcoming event to mark Anti-Homophobia Day.

After reading a leaflet about Ashers cake services, he placed an order with Karen McArthur. He asked for a cake bearing the slogan "support gay marriage" along with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and the logo of the Queerspace organisation he belongs to. Mrs McArthur accepted the order and it was paid in full by Mr Lee.

A few days later, after discussing the matter with her daughter-in-law Amy McArthur and her son Daniel, Mrs McArthur contacted Mr Lee to say Ashers could not fulfil his order because of their Christian beliefs.

"This is not a company that had said to its staff 'we have scruples about what we do,' Mr Allen told the court. "You might have thought that if the company did have scruples the director would know. [Mr Lee] did business with the director. You would have thought those scruples would have been made aware at that stage but they weren't."

"Even religious bodies, if they venture into commercial practices, cannot discriminate. If you are engaged in commerce your doors must be open to everybody. You must supply goods and services to everybody," Mr Allen said.

He added: "In a province where sectarianism has been rife in the past, if there's one thing that can glue diverse communities together is that they can do business with each other."

Giving evidence, Mr Lee said that he "felt sorry" for Mrs McArthur when she told him they could not fulfil his order as she was so apologetic.

When he was told the order was cancelled because of religious beliefs, he said he felt: "I wasn't worthy of service because they were Christian".

"That was the message that struck me. It made me feel not worthy, like I'm a lesser person and to me that is wrong," Mr Lee added.

The case continues today with lawyers for Ashers Bakery giving evidence.


Key figures in the case

THE McARTHURS: Daniel McArthur is general manager of Ashers Baking Company. He refused a request to make a cake with the words 'Support Gay Marriage' below an image of Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie. Married to Amy with a daughter, Robyn, Mr McArthur says: "We are Christians and our Christianity reaches to every point of our lives, whether that's at home or in the day-to-day running of the business."

GARETH LEE: Gareth Lee made the complaint against Ashers Bakery after he requested and paid for the cake on May 9. Mr Lee was contacted two days later with the message that the bakery could not fulfil the order because they were Christian, and a refund was offered. Described as an LGBT activist, Mr Lee is pictured on the website of QueerSpace in Belfast at the city's Gay Pride parade in 2008 with a 'Support Gay Marriage' poster featuring Bert and Ernie - the exact same design requested for the cake.

ROBIN ALLEN: A QC specialising in equality, discrimination and human rights law, Mr Allen is representing Gareth Lee. He recently acted successfully for a gay couple who were turned away from a guesthouse in Cornwall run by a Christian couple. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful discrimination for the B&B owners to refuse a double-bedded room to the same-sex couple. Mr Allen has said his work is "nearly always concerned with the most difficult cases. Often these are test cases exploring new areas of law."

DAVID SCOFFIELD: A Northern Ireland-based barrister who practises principally in constitutional, administrative and public law, Mr Scoffield represents Ashers. He was appointed a Queen's Counsel at the age of just 34 in 2011. Recently, he represented a gay man who brought judicial review proceedings against the ban imposed by former Health Minister Edwin Poots on gay men giving blood. Mr Scoffield told the High Court the lifetime ban was unjustifiable and said it had been influenced by Mr Poots' religious beliefs.

ISOBEL BROWNLIE: One of Northern Ireland's most senior female members of the judiciary, Ms Brownlie has the task of deciding the outcome of the case. She was appointed a District Judge in September 1997 after practising as a solicitor between 1984 and 1997. She was previously a Deputy District Judge between 1993 and 1997 and has served as a committee member of the UK Association of Women Judges.


Statement read by Daniel McArthur outside Laganside Court ahead of the hearing

"Ashers Baking Company is, and always has been, willing to serve any and every customer who comes through our doors. We love serving people. Our problem with producing the cake we were asked to make last year was with the message not the customer. We just didn't want to be forced to use our creative skills to help endorse and promote a campaign message that went against our sincerely held religious beliefs. We are just trying to be faithful to the Bible.

"We think it is wrong to use the laws to force anyone to say something that they oppose and hope that the court will take the same view. There are obviously big issues at stake, not for just us, about things like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

"It's not easy for us being in the middle of all this. We wish it hadn't happened. But I would like to thank all our friends and family, and Christians from all over the British Isles and beyond for their prayers and their support. We have been truly humbled by the support we have received from people from all walks of life.

"Tuesday's public meeting showed the scale of public support and we were just so thankful for that. We don't know what the outcome of the case will be but we do know that God is faithful and we place our trust in Him. Thank you."


SUMMARY OF PRCEEDINGS SO FAR

The latest from our reporter Deborah McAleese @DeborahMcAleese in court:


Case due to run into a third day. Court has been adjourned for the day. Will resume on Monday morning.

Ashers QC asks "When the McArthurs put on their bakers apron must they put aside their religious beliefs, the very core of who they are?"

"Once a genuine case of conscientious objection is established the state is obliged to protect the rights of the objectors" says Ashers QC

Ashers QC says if businesses are forced to produce goods against their religious beliefs it would "allow the malicious to stir up trouble"

"When individuals are forced to produce goods promoting a cause with which they strongly disagree, that is the antithesis to democracy"

This is plainly not a sexual orientation case" Mr Scoffield QC for Ashers says

Ashers' QC David Scoffield says Mr Lee's "perception of the reason" his order was refused is "irrelevant".

QC says he doesn't "want to minimise the hurt the plaintiff says he feels" but suggests Mr Lee was perhaps being "over sensitive"

"If a heterosexual couple had placed the same order they would have got the same response" Ashers QC tells court

Barrister for Ashers tells judge the issue isn't how much sympathy there is for Mr Lee but must be determined objectively & dispassionately

"It was the message on the cake that was the issue and not any characteristic of the plaintiff himself" Ashers lawyer tells court

"Ashers serve gay customers in their shop on a daily basis"

The defendants didn't know and didn't care what the plaintiff's sexual orientation was" their barrister tells court

Equality Commission told Ashers they would not litigate if there was an immediate acknowledgment the business breached equality law, court is told

QC for Ashers Bakery David Schoffield tells court "As a matter of pure domestic law properly analysed there was no discrimination in this case"

"I was wrestling it over in my heart and mind" Colin McArthur tells court

Colin McArthur tells court he discussed with his wife "how we could stand before God and bake a cake like this, promoting a cause like this"

Colin McArthur, Director of Ashers, takes the stand to give evidence

Daniel McArthur has finished giving evidence. Legal discussions ongoing over whether his father should be called to take the stand

Daniel McArthur: "We weren't doing it in defiance of the law. Before God it's not something we could do"

Daniel McArthur tells court he discussed the position Ashers should take with an elder at his Church

"As Christians gay marriage is contradictory to the Bible. We believe as Christians we cannot put it on a cake"

Daniel McArthur tells court " We believe the business is being given to us by God and how we use it is on our shoulders"

Mrs McArthur has finished giving evidence. Her son Daniel, Ashers manager, will now give evidence

"Do you not think you should have immediately told Mr Lee (the order would not be fulfilled)?" Mrs McArthur is asked. "No" she replies

QC for Mr Lee: "As of that date you might have been prepared to fulfil the order. After all, you're prepared to make Halloween cakes"

"In my heart I knew I would not be able to fulfil the order" Mrs McArthur tells court

Mrs McArthur said she accepted Mr Lee's order because she didn't want to embarrass him or have a confrontation in the shop

Mrs McArthur admits leaflet publicising their cake services doesn't say there are any limitations to the graphics they use

Gareth Lee's barrister tells Mrs McArthur "I'm not here for religious debate"

Mrs McArthur tells court she would have "felt wrong in my own conscience putting it on a cake"

"The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage" Karen McArthur

Karen McArthur tells the court: "I've been a born again Christian since I was 7. I love The Lord & seek to please him in way I live my life"

Karen McArthur, who initially accepted Mr Lee's order, is taking the stand..

ENDS

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by aquila on Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

It's a cake for goodness' sake.

Someone's feelings were hurt, boo hoo.

The Equalities Commission is not fit for purpose to take up this case over a cake.

I've had quite a morning. I took a taxi and was lectured by the taxi driver on how Mohammed predicted climate change 1400 years ago. This conversation started out as 'gosh the weather is awful today'.

This man became very animated and each time he said Mohammed he added a chant. He also added the same chant when speaking of Jesus. I was a bit gobsmacked into how this benign 'the weather is awful' turned into a lecture on Islam. I listened to the reason for halal meat (I didn't bring it up in conversation). I listened to the Bible telling everyone not to eat pork. I listened to....and very importantly.....that a muslim can't believe in Mohammed unless they believe in Jesus. I listened to Islam being the final stage in the worship of God and the ultimate third stage.

As I left the taxi, I said I'm having pork for dinner and it's about time everyone lightened up a bit. The happy taxi driver didn't look so happy.

Sorry for drifting off topic.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum