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

Frankly I think both results are stupid, there aren't many details on the BBC article but if it was literally just a cake for the gay wedding then that is dubious IMO and blatant discrimination - though they do mention:

The conservative Christian argued "creative artists" have a right to decide what they sell.
Click to expand...

and I wouldn't put it past the BBC (as much as they try to be unbiased) to deliberately omit the details of the actual argument there. I guess technically putting two male figures on the cake could count (though is a bit more of a stretch than the original case).

I think in the original case the objection was valid re: the message, in that case they're not refusing to sell a gay couple a cake but refusing to write a political message and that is where I do think that people in a creative role who take on commissioned work ought to be free to object.

I think my example posted re: the original story is still valid - try going to a muslim baker and getting them to do a Mohammed cake, perhaps a "Jesus and Mo" cake for an atheist's birthday, or perhaps one with a the Humanists UK message: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

Bakers ought to be entitled to censor or refuse things that go against their belief - as an amusing example though there was this recent story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44217118

Anyone who has graduated from high school or university should be due a decent celebration.

But Jacob Koscinski, a US high school student, ended up somewhat disappointed.

The South Carolina student's mother had asked a local grocery store to print the term "Summa Cum Laude" (with the highest distinction) on her son's cake.

The store censored the term "cum" deeming it offensive and put three hyphens in its place.
Click to expand...

It seems to have been automatically censored by the online ordering system in that case and you'd think perhaps the person making it ought to have spotted the obvious mistake but regardless, that bakery clearly has made a decision to censor certain things/essentially refuse to create certain things (words) on the basis that they deem them offensive.
 
"Questions will now be asked as to whether the Equality Commission was right to spend more than £150,000 of public money on this case.

The commission backed Mr Lee, who ordered the "gay cake" but was refused.

Four years later - and having built up a huge legal bill - the Supreme Court has ruled it was not a case of discrimination."

Quite! But the result is the icing on this cake.
 
Seems like the right decision - there is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake for gay people and refusing to bake a cake containing a political message etc..

as per my OP 4 years ago:

dowie said:
I'm normally pro gay rights but I think this is a bit of a knee jerk reaction from the equality commission... they've seen that some gay people have been refused something and have instantly gone on the attack.

this comment from a gay rights campaigner also misses the point IMO:


The fact is they haven't refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual orientation - in fact I'm sure the gay couple can go back an order any number of baked goods from that shop without discrimination. What they've refused to do is to print a political message they don't agree with on a cake:
Click to expand...

Edit 1 : (they could have perhaps also refused on the basis that they were asked to breach copyright re: the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie too)

Edit 2 - re-reading the thread is interesting, @Jokester pointed this out on page 2, could have saved rather a lot of other people's money if they'd just denied based on copyright re: Sesame Street

(then again I guess we wouldn't have this ruling to clarify what ought to be common sense to most people but seemingly triggered a knee jerk reaction by the SJWs at the equality commission)
 
Last edited:
I agree with the Supreme courts decision as well, and felt the gay-rights activist was clearly out looking to make an example.

I find it creates a bit of a mockery of the judicial process when one set of judges find in favour one side, and then it gets raised to a higher court where another panel of judges find in favour the other way.
 
Unanimous as well. Just to say again, Ashers bakery is as from a locally well known christian family etc, he knew what he was doing when he was walking in.
 
quite funny to read through the first few pages of the thread, several posters seemingly not getting that the baker isn't refusing to bake cakes for gay people but is refusing to bake a cake with a specific political message on it... rather an important distinction and despite several hypothetical arguments to try and illustrate why there is a difference there posters carried on with the view that the bakers are refusing to bake a cake for gay people
 
kindai said:
Supreme court overrules both lower court and court of appeal in favor of the bakers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

Finally some common sense prevails, even if theres a half a million quid bill attached.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I started a thread about this in speakers corner. A victory for 'free speech and the right of expression for all denominations'.
Matters really have been going too far, we have sections of society where their rights have been trampled on in order to uphold the rights of other sections. That can't be right and is I think an unintended consequence of poorly drafted legislation.
 
Faustus said:
Agreed. I started a thread about this in speakers corner. A victory for 'free speech and the right of expression for all denominations'.
Matters really have been going too far, we have sections of society where their rights have been trampled on in order to uphold the rights of other sections. That can't be right and is I think an unintended consequence of poorly drafted legislation.
Click to expand...
A win for the rights of corporate entities. Right on, brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom