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

[cheesyboy]

You've been on a strawman roll in this thread.

Just to position things, I am totally for gay marriage, and I have a number of married gay friends.

If the bakery refused to serve them at all because they are gay, then I would have a clear issue with it. Refusing to create a bespoke item based on it's content is not, I feel, the same thing. They would not offer said product to a heterosexual requester, so they are not discriminating the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

When offering services to a customer, their sexual orientation doesn't come it to play. Cleaning a gay person's house, or selling a gay person a car, is no different from doing the same for a hetero customer in a transactional sense.

As long as anyone was allowed to buy everything sold, you would be ok with:
- A record store refusing to stock music by black artists?
- A school only providing standing urinals?
- A library refusing to install disabled access?

It's all discriminatory, despite offering the same service to all.

If someone went to bakery and asked for a cake that said "Suck it Brazil, see you next World Cup", and the bakery refused to take on the order (say because they were Brazilian), it would be essentially the same thing. A bumper sticker designer might also refuse a request for a "Mancheser United is for noobs" sticker, as they happen to be a Man U fan.

Are we saying that any company offering bespoke services should be legally obliged to cater to any customer request (provided the request in itself doesn't break any laws)? That's getting a bit too Big Brother for my tastes.

Now THAT is a straw man. Your examples are where insult is being requested, the gay cake was neutral, so they are not comparable.

If the cake had said "Christians need to gay up" or some such, then they would have been perfectly entitled to refuse.

 

[krooton]

Well if you want to get all technical about it, Bert and Ernie are copyrighted characters...

Or perhaps the baker held them in high regard from his childhood, so insinuating that they are gay was offensive to him.

As for your other examples:

Whilst refusing to stock music by black artists is morally iffy, a shop has the right to stock whatever it chooses. I can't go sue a corner shop for not stocking any Indian cooking items claiming they are racist.

The disabled access and toilet examples are in no way comparable (even the music one isn't really), as they are not bespoke items to be created.

If a non-disabled person requested a cake with a wheelchair on it, and the bakery refused, could they get done for discrimination against disabled people?

 

[sports_brah]

Personally, in this age of information, I don't see the issue with people being refused anything, based even on taboo things like race, religion sexuality.

The world of business is competitive enough, that only small boycotts would need to be effective.


I say let people make their own choice, and let society feel if it wants to support them.



In this particular case, I would feel this even more strongly, you can't force someone to use up their precious hours on this planet to make something so inflammatory.

 

[regulus]

Hang on if a certain religion is allowed to not serve pork or alcahol products(I think that happened)then why shouldn't this other religion be allowed to do as they wish?

I'm not a homophobe for the record just fed up of the minority intruding on the majorities ways.

Because the members of said religion start squealing, burning and mudering and crazed lefties start bobbing right behind them.

 

[sports_brah]

Now THAT is a straw man. Your examples are where insult is being requested, the gay cake was neutral, so they are not comparable.

If the cake had said "Christians need to gay up" or some such, then they would have been perfectly entitled to refuse.

Ashers Baking Company declined an order from a gay rights activist, asking for cake featuring the Sesame Street puppets, Bert and Ernie.

The customer also wanted the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called "Queerspace".


I can see how some people would feel the perversion of their childhood icons could be construed as being offensive.

Especially when tainting with a particular message.


But then again, this ties into an idea that has crept into society in modern times. It's not offensive unless it is found so by a highly media driven idea. Then it's GROSSLY offensive and will be castigated using a number of highly charged words.

 

[ubersonic]

they've seen that some gay people have been refused something and have instantly gone on the attack

Ironically straight people would have been refused the same request

 

[krooton]

Could Jackamo be sued on sexism grounds due to it no stocking anything for females?

 

[Ryan-3]

They've disagreed with the slogan that they want on the cake, the same way as they wouldn't make one with "**** her in the *****" on. Personally I'd see no problem with producing it with a pro-gay slogan, unless it was something quite extreme, which it probably isn't.

 

[cheesyboy]

Well if you want to get all technical about it, Bert and Ernie are copyrighted characters...

Or perhaps the baker held them in high regard from his childhood, so insinuating that they are gay was offensive to him.

As for your other examples:

Whilst refusing to stock music by black artists is morally iffy, a shop has the right to stock whatever it chooses. I can't go sue a corner shop for not stocking any Indian cooking items claiming they are racist.

The disabled access and toilet examples are in no way comparable (even the music one isn't really), as they are not bespoke items to be created.

If a non-disabled person requested a cake with a wheelchair on it, and the bakery refused, could they get done for discrimination against disabled people?

My point is that "offering the same service to all" doesn't make something non-discriminatory.

My examples were where the service offered was discriminatory in nature, but was consistently offered to all without further discrimination. And it's still discrimination.

You post is, again, otherwise full of straw men (indian cooking items FFS!)

 

[bitslice]

It's a bit crass to have a wedding cake celebrating a socio-political victory rather than the fact they are getting married.
They should be kicked out of the gay club for being naff and passé.

 

[Raymond Lin]

My point is that "offering the same service to all" doesn't make something non-discriminatory.

My examples were where the service offered was discriminatory in nature, but was consistently offered to all without further discrimination. And it's still discrimination.

You post is, again, otherwise full of straw men (indian cooking items FFS!)

You want to lead the charge against Barclays?

 

[kedge]

So if the new testament expels all the rules from the old.

The principles or standards still apply to Christians according to some Christians, also the NT is still clear on certain behaviour that is acceptable or unacceptable to the God of the bible.

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10

God not liking gays.

Or maybe it's the actions/behaviour of the individual that God does not like?.

 

[Lima]

Bunch of homophobic bible bashing ******s, hope they fry for it.

I don't even have anything to do with all the LGBT stuff, I just think Christianity is a series of huge contraditions "Love thy neighbour unless he's queer, a slave, a woman, a disobedient child or belongs to another religion. In which case life is no longer sacred and you can kill them if you want"

If a couple of dudes want to marry in a church and be miserable like the rest of humanity then let 'em, if they want a a picture of eddie izzard rimming stephen fry on their wedding cake then why not? It's just business.

Let me put it this way, if a bakery owner refused service based on the ground of someone being black or an interracial couple saying "Black people marrying is an abomination, they should be in the cotton fields" that would be discrimination - same thing applies here. It's discrimination, businesses can't have religions as was recently proved in the states.

1 - You have completely missed the point and your black people comparison is stupid.

2 - Can you provide a source to the 'quoted' Christianity passage? Pretty sure you have just completely made that up....

3 - Not everyone that is married (the rest of humanity??) is miserable. Once again....the baker’s didn’t refuse to serve them because they are gay......they just didn’t agree with the message/ image that they were being asked to put on the cake.....

 

[AGD]

Two things.

Why do gays have to bring their sexuality into *everything*?

"Hi, Mr Hairdresser, I'd like a haircut. Did I tell you I'm gay? Short back and sides, please. Thanks."
"Mr Employer, can I have a job at your company? You know I'm gay, right? Has your workforce had it's tolerance training? Will they all accept my gayness?"
"Mein Doktor, I'm having pains in my chest. Can you make sure the hospital is aware of my special needs, being gay?"
"Yes, this is gay dog. I'm like dog, but GAY."

*If* they didn't rub it in everyone's face, they could pretty much live however they wanted, and still be openly gay, just not some kind of conduit to the Plane of Gay, so that everyone is instantly struck by your gayness.

I'm sure it's the minority giving the majority a bad name, but there we are.

Why do straights have to bring their sexuality into everything?

'Hi Mr hairdresser, cor did you see that lass on tv the other day?'
'Mr employer, can I have a job at your company, I don't want to serve gay customers though, I just don't believe they should have equality you see?'
'I think gay people are equal but they shouldn't be able to do x, y, z'
Builder: *wolf-whistles*
Someone on internet forum: 'why do gays have to keep shoving it down everyone's throats?'
Random image thread: Mainly pictures of scantily clad women.
Many threads in this forum: Tangential remarks about how hot a women is

If someone comes over to you at a party and remarks on how good looking one of the women is, it's fine, but if it was a gay guy talking about a guy, I'm sure you'd be on here raging about gay people shoving it in your face. :/

That aside, gay people can't 'pretty much live however they want' - they need to campaign for change, and be visible in society to get equality. Most gay people, however, aren't activists or flamboyant.

Some gay people will announce up front that they are gay because it a) screens out homophobes b) avoids having to 'come out' later on which can be stressful c) some people see it as deceptive if you don't tell them and d) they probably spent a significant portion of their life forcing themselves not to say those words or even think them, so being able to say them freely can be very liberating.

Ok back to the cake issue. It's tricky. If the only reason they are refusing to make it is because of the pro-gay messaging then that may be discrimination under the law. The ongoing political campaigning about this issue in the area does bring it into free speech territory though. It's a tough one to call.

The main point of the story though, is that it is not big news. It is a story about one tiny bakery and has been blown completely out of proportion by the media.

 

[SPG]

Stupid GAYS, me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.

I am so bloody tired of being tolerant of the intolerant in all walks of life.

 

[chrisoverson]

Interesting discussion.

Not wanting to "Bring my sexuality into everything" I'd like to start by saying I'm a gay man.

I agree that what the baker did in refusing to make the cake is not necessarily homophobia, (although they may be homophobic) but simply against what they believe in.

As above, they didn't appear to refuse the job because the customers were gay. Also if it was a matter of simply photocopying gay literature or similar then it shouldn't be an issue, but to have to hand craft something you find morally objective shouldn't be something you have to do.

I'm a web designer, and whilst I have no issue with people practising Christianity if they want to, and believing in the Bible so long as they don't try and shout profanity etc as I walk down the street with my boyfriend, I would not want to design a website for a Church, and certainly not anything with specific Anti-Gay material, because I myself do not agree with their beliefs.

Hopefully in a few years nobody will have any problem with homosexuaility and it will become just another accepted fact of society just like multiculturalism, but for the moment sadly people do find it offensive and upsetting and those people shouldn't be forced to do something that causes them stress.

You wouldn't force an elderly racist woman to be seen by a black doctor if it causes her visible stress. You just know that in a few years she'll be dead, and her descendents will hopefully be better educated.

 

[Greboth]

Could Jackamo be sued on sexism grounds due to it no stocking anything for females?

In theory yes, wasn't Shelias wheels successfully sued for not providing insurance to men? If they can be then why should we treat clothes shops differently?

What I can never wrap my head around in these situations is, if you get refused service for some reason in a shop then most people would just next door (or 5 doors, 10 doors etc.) to a competitors shop who will do it.

Personally I don't think it is discrimination, refusal of making that specific cake =/= refusal of service.

 

[EddScott]

I agree that what the baker did in refusing to make the cake is not necessarily homophobia, (although they may be homophobic) but simply against what they believe in.

Not pointing a finger just picking out a section of this post.

The baker refused to make this cake because of their belief - is this considered OK?

I would like to think I am not homophobic but there are certain aspects of what is allowed/not allowed in the modern world to which I accept but do not necessarily agree with. I have no beliefs as such which will give me an excuse to feel this way, its just my own personal belief - is that considered OK?

Just saying is having a religious belief a means to be intolerant and it being allowed?

 

[chrisoverson]

Not pointing a finger just picking out a section of this post.

The baker refused to make this cake because of their belief - is this considered OK?

I would like to think I am not homophobic but there are certain aspects of what is allowed/not allowed in the modern world to which I accept but do not necessarily agree with. I have no beliefs as such which will give me an excuse to feel this way, its just my own personal belief - is that considered OK?

Just saying is having a religious belief a means to be intolerant and it being allowed?

The way I personally feel is, that hopefully in a few years nobody will believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, other races, other sexes and so on, that there will be full and total equality and nobody will have any issues or intolerances.

But for the moment there are people who through religion, their upbrining or their personal experience do have issues with certain groups. This is not their fault, and so long as they do not participate in actively hateful acts, and effectively take the "live and let live" attitude then they should not be punished for feeling this way.

Science has told us that the Earth is not flat. If you find someone who through poor education believes the Earth is flat then you don't need to shout at them until they agree with you. As long as they are not causing any harm to anybody you can just leave them to their belief, and educate your own children better. Eventually, nobody will believe the Earth is flat.

 

[spoffle]

In theory yes, wasn't Shelias wheels successfully sued for not providing insurance to men? If they can be then why should we treat clothes shops differently?

What I can never wrap my head around in these situations is, if you get refused service for some reason in a shop then most people would just next door (or 5 doors, 10 doors etc.) to a competitors shop who will do it.

Personally I don't think it is discrimination, refusal of making that specific cake =/= refusal of service.

It's a different scenario completely. Jackamo won't refuse to sell to a woman, they just don't stock clothes intended for women. A woman could buy and wear the clothes from there without any issues from Jackamo themselves. So no not in theory. If Sheila's Wheels wouldn't provide the service to men at all, then that's discrimination based on gender, and there's a huge difference there.