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)

This is a great thread with some great forth and back.

I'm obviously on the side of the bakery being allowed to refuse to create a product if they wish.

However, having thought about it after finding out that payment was received by the owner.....It puts another shade upon the deal.

The time is refuse was at the point of sale.....I'd support the bakery having a message up about 'reserving the right to refuse a message'....But perhaps once you have taken the order with the message and the money with it you should then see through the order as a point of principle.

If someone takes my money for something I don't take kindly to being told at a later date, 'no thanks'.....That's mucking me about.....The time for that is at the point of sale.....Like the bouncer who refuses you or allows you entry to the club.

So in summary I support the right of a business such as bakeries to filter which messages they produce on products.....Whether that's their prejudice or not.....A customer can always choose another shop.

However, I think for fairness of business practice....If the owner has taken the order with payment.....tough titty....Fulfill your part of the exchange.

People shouldn't be forced into things against their conscience but by the same token....If you take the man/women's money as the owner....Produce the service/product.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2015 2.25pm)