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

Acme said:
It wasn't direct discrimination against the customer.

If a straight person came in and asked for a gay cake, it would have had the same outcome.
Click to expand...

Lol. Stupid gay cakes!

That's my point as well though. And that's what people in here are struggling to grasp. At no point did they say they wouldn't serve that gentleman. What they said was they wouldn't put that design on a cake. He could have asked for another message and would have got it.

We have the right to free speech in this country, surely we should have the right to shut the hell up too?
 
cheesyboy said:
That's France, and looks more like a licensing issue than a legal one. Much like the Indian restaurant owners in my local town were denied a license to open a new Indian takeaway fairly nearby after taking on a lease - believe it was felt by the council that there would be too many Indian takeaways. They opened a fried chicken takeaway instead.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, but the same laws apply here in the UK. Otherwise this case would never have made the news.
 
Question here...Let's assume prostitution is legalised.

What happens if i refuse to shag a bloke? Can he then sue me for sexual discrimination?
 
The ruling doesn't sit right with me but their stupidity was giving the reason for the refusal which turned into discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
Acme said:
It wasn't direct discrimination against the customer.

If a straight person came in and asked for a gay cake, it would have had the same outcome.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lol, the logic fail is awesome here. They did not refuse service because the people ordering the cake were gay. They refused service because they did not like that the customer did not share their religious beliefs in relation to gay marriage. That is where the case of discrimination lay.

The fact the customer was gay is irrelevant yet it seems many posting here illogically make this the central theme.
 
Last edited:
From the BBC:

In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
The judges also said that Ashers would not have objected to a cake carrying the message: "Support Heterosexual Marriage" or indeed "Support Marriage".
"We accept that it was the use of the word 'gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled," they said.
"The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation.
"This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.
 
Acme said:
So the cake design actually sported a message saying "Support gay marriage" then...

Yeah...
Click to expand...

The bakers putting this on the cake is not the same thing as actively supporting gay marriage. No different to a baker who is a Liverpool supporter putting Support Man United on a cake makes him a Man Utd supporter.
 
People saying that it's not fair to suggest that the business owner should go and try another business is unfair and far too drastic vs. the customer simply trying a different cake shop have a good point from a practical point of view.

The issue is that according to law, the onus is on the business to serve anyone without any form of discrimination.
 
I know that, you know that, but religion is ingrained.

And I thought a business owner was allowed to deny anyone service should they wish to?

This issue was born because they said WHY they weren't going to serve them, not because they didn't serve them.

I suppose thats the tall and short of it.
 
Last edited:
Liquidfox said:
Some poster's views in this topic actually infuriate me beyond belief. You don't decide to your sexuality (the vast majority of the time), however you cannot say the same for your beliefs. You choose a specific religion or it is chosen for you and you have the choice of whether to follow this imaginary sky pixie, or not.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of people don't choose their religion; it's not hard to see that several people effectively get brainwashed into religion from an early age.

Trying to belittle people's belief by pejoratively denigrating it to "belief in an imaginary sky pixie" is not ok though; whatever way you look at it.

Acme said:
And I thought a business owner was allowed to deny anyone service should they wish to?
Click to expand...
Legally speaking they can't refuse it if its on unreasonable grounds, in which sexuality is rightly considered to be unreasonable grounds.
 
Last edited:
Don't really know why it's taken so long.
There are simple basic rules for running a business they have been broken.
Won't elaborate as it's difficult to write a lot on phone on a break.
To me it's nearly as simple as of it had been 'straight' instead of 'gay' it would have been OK.

It's a slippery slope and I'm glad it's been nipped in the bud here.

A many have said.. Of there are some cakes you don't want to make due to beliefs.. Dont do custom cakes.


Also, it's fascinating (and scary) to discover some people's views on here!
 
Acme said:
And I thought a business owner was allowed to deny anyone service should they wish to?
Click to expand...

Not on the basis of protected characteristics, in this case sexual orientation. And before you say "but they wouldn't have served a straight guy who made the same order", the ruling was made on the basis that the order itself was rejected due to the use of the word 'gay' in the cake message.
 
Although the views of the shop owners seems backwards, in the context that same sex marriage in Northern Ireland is not recognised I struggle to understand how this made it to court and then found in favour of the couple.

On this basis is it not discriminatory of members of the NI Assembly to vote against legalisation of gay marriage? How is it fundamentally different?
 
SpeedFreak said:
Although the views of the shop owners seems backwards, in the context that same sex marriage in Northern Ireland is not recognised I struggle to understand how this made it to court and then found in favour of the couple.

On this basis is it not discriminatory of members of the NI Assembly to vote against legalisation of gay marriage? How is it fundamentally different?
Click to expand...
Because....

cheesyboy said:
Gay marriage is illegal, not gay cake.
Click to expand...
 
SpeedFreak said:
Although the views of the shop owners seems backwards, in the context that same sex marriage in Northern Ireland is not recognised I struggle to understand how this made it to court and then found in favour of the couple.

On this basis is it not discriminatory of members of the NI Assembly to vote against legalisation of gay marriage? How is it fundamentally different?
Click to expand...

That is a really good point actually. I guess in this case it's the fact that members of the assembly aren't running a business.

The court says that the business can't make decisions based on its beliefs that affect what trade it does - which I agree with.

The difference being that the assembly isn't running a business or doing trade. But they are having a significant impact on proponents of gay marriage.
 
John40 said:
If the cake shop has to close to pay the legal costs what a brilliant outcome for the gaystapo. They would be over the moon because let's face it that would be the result they must have dreamt about.
Click to expand...

The outcome they dreamed about was being able to walk into a baker's shop and order a cake without being discriminated against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom