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

ICDP · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:26

Acme said:
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.

It would be over simplistic to assume had the cake shop owners said nothing they could have got away with it. The bakers would have had to provide acceptable reasons as to why the order was not going to be completed.

There seems to be a unbelievable amount of people (not aiming this at you) who feel going looking for trouble is reasonable cause for getting it. It's the old "she was dressed provocatively so she deserved it" defence. Even if this gay couple setup the bakers to fall into their trap, it does not exonerate the bakers from breaking discrimination laws.

ICDP · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:39

SpeedFreak said:
Suppose the message said "Support Underage Sex". Should they be taken to court under accusations of age discrimination by a 13 year old?

I don't support the bakery, I simply think that the ruling is tenuous and sets quite an odd precedent.

The difference here is that paedophiles are not a protected minority.

Akagi · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:41

You don't have to be a paedophile? You just have to be under 16...

ICDP · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:42

Acme said:
You don't have to be a paedophile? You just have to be under 16...

Then those who practice under age sex are not a protected minority. Though I think you are astute enough to know what I meant.

Nasher · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:48

They could have simply refused business from them. They don't have to give any reason.

Dunny774 · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:52

asim18 said:
This is just a case of homosexuals who aren't happy enough being homosexual in private, but then want to ram it down everyone else's throats on some sort of mission to homosexualise the world.

I don't care for any religion nor anyone's private sexual practices, but I feel sorry for those Christians, they must feel like they've been raped by two gays.

One of the parties is clearly just there ONLY to cause conflict, and it is not the bakery.
I highly doubt these homosexuals ONLY wanted a cake. Otherwise they would have just gone to another bakery and this whole charade would never have happened.

And the message this gives to other crusading homosexualists is not the right one. It nurtures conflict, "Go to christian bakeries and order gay cakes".

I read somewhere (I will find it)
That one of the biggest Homosexual activist said this ruling could cause so many problems (aka Holocaust Denial cake forced onto jewish bakers).

I support gay marriage but I also support the right for refusal, I think this ruling is unfair.

Scotty123 · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:59

Disappointed they lost even though I don't agree with their views/ways.

Although I have no time for and dislike religion, I respect other people's beliefs.

I would have just took my business and money elsewhere, as a gay man (not that I would ever get such a silly cake

). Politely moved on.

Dis86 · 25 Oct 2016 at 14:59

ICDP said:
Then those who practice under age sex are not a protected minority. Though I think you are astute enough to know what I meant.

Who decides who's a protected minority?

Akagi · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:04

Dis86 said:
Who decides who's a protected minority?

God.

koolpc · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:04

Were they upset because of the crack in the cake?

ICDP · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:05

Nasher said:
They could have simply refused business from them. They don't have to give any reason.

Under UK law, yes they do actually.

It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation. It is also contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct.
Where you refuse to provide a service to a prospective client you should provide them with a reason for that refusal.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppor...e-advice-service/q-and-as/refusing-a-service/

Akagi · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:06

koolpc said:
Were they upset because of the crack in the cake?

Surely they would quite enjoy a nice crack in the cake?

...

Dis86 · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:07

So that goes by to my theoretical point.

If prostitution is legalised, do I therefore have to service men as well as women?
I can't say no on basis of gender remember. Therfore I'm being forced to have sex against my will. That's therfore rape.

platypus · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:08

Prostitution isn't legal, so its moot.

Akagi · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:08

Dis86 said:
So that goes by to my theoretical point.

If prostitution is legalised, do I therefore have to service men as well as women?
I can't say no on basis of gender remember. Therfore I'm being forced to have sex against my will. That's therfore rape.

Its not quite the same...

cheesyboy · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:11

platypus said:
Prostitution isn't legal, so its moot.

I wouldn't say it's moot. Prostitution is likely to have its legal status changed at some point in the not-to-distant future.

As for the question, I don't think there would be an issue. The process of supplying a gay cake is not materially different to supplying a straight one. Gay/straight sex work is, on the other hand, very different. The rights of the customer wouldn't override the body-autonomy rights of the sex worker which, under any law that comes to pass, would be enshrined as highest priority.

Dave M · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:13

platypus said:
Prostitution isn't legal, so its moot.

It is actually. In a wonderfully British fudge it's legal but activities typically associated with it aren't.

Thekwango · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:13

Nasher said:
They could have simply refused business from them. They don't have to give any reason.

ICDP said:
Under UK law, yes they do actually.

It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation. It is also contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct.
Where you refuse to provide a service to a prospective client you should provide them with a reason for that refusal.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppor...e-advice-service/q-and-as/refusing-a-service/

'dear mr and mr gay couple, sorry we have a bit of bad news - we miscalculated the number of outstanding orders we have and in this instance won't be able to fulfil your order. apologies for any inconvenience caused - yours sincerely ashers non-homophobic bakery'

the above would have solved the bakeries issue without need for a court case, and everyone could move on with their lives! But no, everyone has to get all knicker twisted.

dl8860 · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:17

Dunny774 said:
I read somewhere (I will find it)
That one of the biggest Homosexual activist said this ruling could cause so many problems (aka Holocaust Denial cake forced onto jewish bakers).

I support gay marriage but I also support the right for refusal, I think this ruling is unfair.

Holocaust denial isn't a protected characteristic...

Drizmod · 25 Oct 2016 at 15:20

Devils advocate, I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a cake to be baked by a bakery that is owned by Muslims with the words 'freedom of speech' with a picture of Muhammad on the cake?