Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

robgmun said:
Whole panel agreed that if you have a business you can't 'discriminate' anyone
Click to expand...

So in other words they skirted the actual issue of debate - gay customers were not refused service, the design of the cake was refused as would many other designs no doubt (designs which refusal would not have caused controversy as the content would not have been related to homosexuality and so not 'protected'). Is this stretching the limit of 'discrimination'
 
asteldian said:
So in other words they skirted the actual issue of debate - gay customers were not refused service, the design of the cake was refused as would many other designs no doubt (designs which refusal would not have caused controversy as the content would not have been related to homosexuality and so not 'protected'). Is this stretching the limit of 'discrimination'
Click to expand...
It was recognised in court that the bakery would have happily made a straight equivalent of the same cake so, no, they wouldn't have refused the design.

Offering the same service to all, isn't necessarily non-discriminatory. Refusing, for example, to make black icing people to put on a wedding cake for a black couple would be discriminatory - even though the black couple could buy a cake with white people on it, just like everyone else.
 
asteldian said:
So in other words they skirted the actual issue of debate - gay customers were not refused service, the design of the cake was refused as would many other designs no doubt (designs which refusal would not have caused controversy as the content would not have been related to homosexuality and so not 'protected'). Is this stretching the limit of 'discrimination'
Click to expand...

It felt like the BBC was avoiding that point being made as it was the last question and refused to take comments from the audience, it was a speedy response round the table then goodnight
 
asteldian said:
So in other words they skirted the actual issue of debate - gay customers were not refused service, the design of the cake was refused as would many other designs no doubt (designs which refusal would not have caused controversy as the content would not have been related to homosexuality and so not 'protected'). Is this stretching the limit of 'discrimination'
Click to expand...

As pointed out many times in this thread the Ashers would have designed a cake promoting heterosexual marriage but they wouldn't make one promoting homosexual marriage.

Now draw your own conclusions on the actions of these Christians who are open on Sunday, sell pork products etc
 
asteldian said:
So in other words they skirted the actual issue of debate - gay customers were not refused service, the design of the cake was refused as would many other designs no doubt (designs which refusal would not have caused controversy as the content would not have been related to homosexuality and so not 'protected'). Is this stretching the limit of 'discrimination'
Click to expand...

They refused to print a gay message on a cake for a gay client, the courts ruled that they discriminated against the sexual orientation AND the political message.

Just because the answer isn't the one you want to hear doesn't mean it isn't the right one.
 
Is this going to have a wider impact on Northern Ireland now? The ruling has basically said not recognising same sex marriage is discrimination so surely that means the Government can't continue to refuse to recognise it?
 
Repta said:
Is this going to have a wider impact on Northern Ireland now? The ruling has basically said not recognising same sex marriage is discrimination so surely that means the Government can't continue to refuse to recognise it?
Click to expand...

No.

You can not recognise it and still print the message on the cake, they chose not to serve the customer.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
They refused to print a gay message on a cake for a gay client, the courts ruled that they discriminated against the sexual orientation AND the political message.

Just because the answer isn't the one you want to hear doesn't mean it isn't the right one.
Click to expand...

I personally don't mind what the answer is, I have no personal bias to either camp (except for the fact I cannot stand the ridiculous religious belief that is stemming from 'the word of God' which was written by mankind and therefore is tainted by any bias of the time). I simply find the case intriguing, I currently lean towards feeling the case seemed uncalled for, but I have no anger or outrage towards it or those who disagree, I just find the entire discussion enlightening (well, most the discussion anyway, there are sadly too many posts that need to be ignored)- especially the arguments that counter my thoughts as to me it doesn't seem so black and white, while to others it obviously does.

The message conflicted with their beliefs related to their religion, as opposed to simply being anti homosexual due to your everyday bigotry (unlike the example made regarding black people wanting a cake - as far as I know there is no religious base for being against a black couple, also there is a difference between a cake simply showing a happy couple and having a message of support for something).

The message was against their Philosophical Beliefs so they refused to do it. They have been punished for it. In this case the Equality Law protecting them and their Philosophical Beliefs were trumped by the Equality Law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
Now, is this purely because of the whole business aspect of the Law and therefore their business should be 'Agnostic' so Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Or, because they are willing to serve homosexuals, but like with all customers reserve the right to refuse designs they have issue with, is the Equality Law unjustly trumping one person for another?
 
asteldian said:
The message conflicted with their beliefs related to their religion, as opposed to simply being anti homosexual due to your everyday bigotry (unlike the example made regarding black people wanting a cake - as far as I know there is no religious base for being against a black couple, also there is a difference between a cake simply showing a happy couple and having a message of support for something).
Click to expand...

The black couple example was intended to query the idea that offering the same product to all doesn't negate the possibility for the offering to be discriminatory in nature, rather than it being put forward as an equivalent of the gay cake. Think of it in those terms, and you might see what I was getting at.

The bakers' religion isn't protected under equality law in this case, because they are not being discriminated against or otherwise persecuted. Equality legislation doesn't give permission to use your minority or protected status to discriminate against others.

The decision doesn't force the bakers to be gay, or act as though gay. It simply forces them to offer the same service to gay people as to straight ones.

It was recognised in court that they would have made the same cake in heterosexual flavour, so their refusal was deemed discriminatory.
 
asteldian said:
The message conflicted with their beliefs related to their religion, as opposed to simply being anti homosexual due to your everyday bigotry (unlike the example made regarding black people wanting a cake - as far as I know there is no religious base for being against a black couple, also there is a difference between a cake simply showing a happy couple and having a message of support for something).

The message was against their Philosophical Beliefs so they refused to do it. They have been punished for it. In this case the Equality Law protecting them and their Philosophical Beliefs were trumped by the Equality Law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
Now, is this purely because of the whole business aspect of the Law and therefore their business should be 'Agnostic' so Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Or, because they are willing to serve homosexuals, but like with all customers reserve the right to refuse designs they have issue with, is the Equality Law unjustly trumping one person for another?
Click to expand...

The gay person asking for a gay message on a cake wasn't looking for trouble he just went into a cake shop and asked to make a cake. The person behind the counter took his order and he walked away then later on the manager/owner decided to deny the order and the person was then rung back and told they wouldn't be fulfilling it because of his beliefs.

The shop doesn't advertise itself as a religious bakery so they have no grounds to legally deny to fulfill the order purely based on their beliefs.

The black comparison is still valid, race and sexuality amongst other things are protected by the Equality Act and in the eyes of the law they are in equal standing.

I never said there were religious grounds to deny service to people of difference races. If I believe that people of a certain race, gender, disability or group of people xyz are somehow inferior to me then my philosophical beliefs are irrelevant if I am operating a business that serves the public.

Philosophical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act with regards to religion, their rights weren't infringed upon because they weren't denied the ability to think and feel those beliefs, the gay person didn't order a cake then refused to pay for it just because they were straight christians.

It's not a case of one persons rights trumping another, it's a case of one person religion discriminating against someone and refusing to serve them. The owner could have just ignored the order and the staff that work there could have made the cake and this wouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
So if the Bakery was advertised as a Religious Bakery could they then have reserved the right to refuse the cake on religious grounds? If so, that changes my view entirely as there was a way in which they could stand by their religious beliefs but they did not take it and therefore forfeit any right to refuse on religious grounds.
 
To be able to call yourself a Christian bakery, you would probably need to reflect that Christian status in more ways than simply refusing to serve gays.

If the whole "theme" of the bakery was religiously sound products, they could probably avoid gay cakes. Not sure what that would entail, but unleavened bread would probably come into it, and birthday cakes with Harry Potter on probably wouldn't.
 
cheesyboy said:
It was recognised in court that the bakery would have happily made a straight equivalent of the same cake so, no, they wouldn't have refused the design.

Offering the same service to all, isn't necessarily non-discriminatory. Refusing, for example, to make black icing people to put on a wedding cake for a black couple would be discriminatory - even though the black couple could buy a cake with white people on it, just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is a question of how far you think such equality laws should go.

You are making the comparison of they would have made a straight equivalent of the cake and therefore it is discrimination.

Whereas I have the view of they would not have made the 'gay' cake for a straight person / couple so it was not discrimination.

I think since the issue is over a message that it is a grey area and I that equality legislation is attempting to reach too far. It would be straightforward if they were refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality but they did not do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom