A photographic agency hired to take pictures of the Christian owners of a bakery after their Supreme Court victory in the “gay cake” case has refused to hand over the images, saying the company was “standing up against discrimination”.
Er, no they are not, because the judgement specifically confirmed that no discrimination had taken place. It’s about being forced to endorse a campaign that the owners of the bakery disagreed with. I’m sure Mr Xu would not wish to be forced to endorse a campaign he disagrees with. Oh, that’s correct, he just exercised that right. Well done Tony, you twonk.
In a statement Tony Xu, the founder of the booking site, said: “We appreciate that this looks like tit for tat, and it is.”
Yup. It’s also childish and petty, not to mention vacuous, vapid virtue-signalling.
“In short, we welcome customers from all backgrounds,” he said. “When our photographer on the ground learned what it was while doing the job, they felt immediately uncomfortable with the situation, as many members of the public are, but remained professional.
If he felt uncomfortable, all I can say is that he must be a very precious type of snowflake. It was a fairly straightforward photo-shoot and you knew who it was for beforehand, so this is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.
“As soon as I found out though, I realised this was an opportunity to highlight exactly why this kind of result is damaging.
“This isn’t just about standing up against discrimination, I hope our stance serves as an example of exactly where this kind of judgement could lead us. Where does it end?”
You twat. You utter, utter twat. The judgement endorsed your right to do exactly this. Where does it end? Well, hopefully no one will now be forced by leftist arseholes with an axe to grind to endorse a campaign they do not wish to be associated with. You know, like the one you have just declined to endorse. Idiot! The damage was done by the spiteful activist who wasted taxpayer’s money bringing this vexatious litigation in the first place.
Mr Xu told The Independent: “Division is being felt everywhere, and I’d sooner we all appreciated each other regardless of our differences. Our knowingly tit-for-tat stance is purely intended to highlight what this kind of judgement opens the door to.”
It was the right judgement. It opens the door to people rightfully being allowed to refuse work that “makes them uncomfortable” as you put it. In plain English, it opens the door to people rightly being able to refuse work that means they have to endorse messages they disagree with. No one should be forced to endorse something that goes against their conscience. And that includes you. All you have done is show yourself to be a whining, pathetic, virtue-signalling chump. God, what a moron.
Addendum:
According to Xu, he didn’t realise who he was taking to order from yet posted this on his statement page:
It quite clearly states who it is placing the order and what it is for. Plenty of time to refuse it before the moment has gone. This was a deliberate sabotage.
Well if I do, I sure as hell won’t be using you. In fact, anyone but you.
The Daily Mash has a good take on the gay cake story.
Exactly. Mr Xu knew exactly who Ashers were. He stood up for nobody and nothing. If he had taken photos of them not knowing who it was for and for what purpose, he may have had a point. What he did was not comparable.
It’s really more the equivalent of baking the cake and refusing to hand it over. Had Mr. Xu taken payment or not for those images in advance? I suppose not.
No: it’s the very thing that the Ashers did NOT do. They were happy to serve the customer, but not endorse a particular message.
This loon is refusing to serve the customer.
But did Ashers actually pay for the photos in advance? Do you see what I am getting at here or not?
My main bone of contention is that presumably he and Ashers agreed to enter into a contract to take photos with the idea of further publication. Tony Xu is then deciding not to provide the photos. As I said, it really hinges on whether monies were paid or not.
EIther way, he’s a prize pillock.
Yes, they paid and Xu returned the money. According to his statement.
The judgement explicitly said that what he is doing is discrimination. He was refusing to provide an ordinary service based on who the customer was.
He has the judgement utterly arse about face. And if Ashers had any sense at all, they would sue, using the SC judgement as their rationale…
As I understand his rationale, by taking the pictures and being credited for them he is seen to endorse Ashers’ win and therefore their message.
I actually really hope they do.
Tony Xu is being a twat, and imho discriminating, as he accepted the contract knowing he would not deliver based on who customer is. Furthermore, unlike cake, the photo event can not be supplied by A N Other. Is ECHR investigating? Has he refunded his customer as Ashers did?
Correct verdict by UK SC. Will EHRC staff involved and Gareth Lee be paying legal costs of both sides? Thought not, abolish EHRC.
If Gareth Lee et al want to sue a private firm/person pay or find a pro-bono lawyer
Good article from Gay man
Finally, if a supplier does not like/respect you or want your money, why would you want to buy from them?
Yes, according to his statement.
Refunds won’t be enough on a photography contract. A wedding photographer who accepts the gig and takes the photos is excluding anyone else from doing the job. My bet is that the contract is enforceable against him under ordinary terms and they can sue the knickers off him. The fact that he returned the consideration won’t be enough; the contract was formed when he accepted it. It is entirely unprofessional to exclude another photographer by lying.
Yes, if they were to sue, then breach of contract will be enough.
“The judgement endorsed your right to do exactly this.”
Not strictly true – the judgement endorsed the right to turn down the contract. Once the contract was accepted, whole different ballgame.
Strictly speaking, Ashers accepted the contract then turned it down. They did not, however, carry out the contract as Xu did.
If there is cause for Ashers to sue, they should. I hope they win.
They’ve gone better than that. They have accepted the refund and thanked the agency for their time. By doing this they expose Xu for the spiteful little twat that he is and demonstrated that they are better than that.
I agree. I wouldn’t advocate sue Xu.
Geddit?
I wonder if Xu would defend the right of a conscientious objector to refuse to fight? Or would he advocate forcing them?
So Mr Xu didn’t do the job he was contracted to do? Then refunded the Ashers? What he doesn’t understand is that this will not play well for him in future, as fewer people will want the kerfuffle of using a business that goes in for virtue signalling before customer service.
+1
Eg Wedding photos of Goth Emma & Biker Bill withheld as Xu doesn’t like Bikers
He shouldn’t have accepted the job if he wanted to play that game.