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

Freddie1980 said:
The damage was done to the bakery as soon as it was reported in the news.
Click to expand...
it actually didn't do them any damage at all. outside of belfast they were relatively unheard of. i now see their cakes and other wares in a lot of stores round the more rural areas of northern ireland. in fact the Spar chain now stock their cakes which prior to the case they didn't do.
no publicity is bad publicity and all that i guess.

btw they make some damn nice cakes and buns!
 
Thekwango said:
it actually didn't do them any damage at all. outside of belfast they were relatively unheard of. i now see their cakes and other wares in a lot of stores round the more rural areas of northern ireland. in fact the Spar chain now stock their cakes which prior to the case they didn't do.
no publicity is bad publicity and all that i guess.

btw they make some damn nice cakes and buns!
Click to expand...
This.

I'd never heard of them (and I love cake), but now I notice them everywhere.

Gay folks may have boycotted them, but there's just as many religious folks supporting them (probably more since it's Northern Ireland after all).
 
Thekwango said:
no it's not.
the below quote sums it up quite well. no one forced or tried to force anything upon the chap looking the cake made. did anyone at the bakery try and make him change what he wanted on the cake, did they try and change his beliefs or sexual preference? he was quite free to go and take his custom elsewhere and have the cake made. the only thing that could be argued was forced upon him was the location/establishment that made the cake - hardly as massive encumberment.
yet on the other hand he tried to get the law to force someone to do something they didn't feel comfortable doing. no one tried to force him into anything. he was the sole person doing any 'enforcing' or rather attempting to.
Click to expand...
You know, if the case was as straightforward as your explanation, then the bakery would have lost in double quick time - that's what equality law is there for. This case seems to have turned, eventually, on the idea that the slogan on the cake was a political one and that Ashers, therefore, could refuse it.

Without the slogan, it wouldn't have turned on such. You couldn't turn down a legit gay wedding cake and say "we don't sell gay cakes to anyone, so it's not discriminatory", because that policy is inherently discriminatory.
 
cheesyboy said:
Without the slogan, it wouldn't have turned on such. You couldn't turn down a legit gay wedding cake and say "we don't sell gay cakes to anyone, so it's not discriminatory", because that policy is inherently discriminatory.
Click to expand...

They've said that they'd still welcome the customer into the store, even now after he's wasted their time and caused them stress, he's welcome to buy a cake. He's just not allowed a cake with a particular slogan on it...

without the slogan he'd have simply had a fairly ordinary white cake with or without two Sesame Street characters (depending on whether they'd also have had an issue with copyright there) and there wouldn't be a need for a court case in the first place
 
dowie said:
They've said that they'd still welcome the customer into the store, even now after he's wasted their time and caused them stress, he's welcome to buy a cake. He's just not allowed a cake with a particular slogan on it...
Click to expand...
I suppose the question is: can he buy a straight-up gay wedding cake with no slogan?

I look forward to this sequel :D
 
cheesyboy said:
This case seems to have turned, eventually, on the idea that the slogan on the cake was a political one and that Ashers, therefore, could refuse it.
Click to expand...

No it didn't, the political aspect was a consideration but whether or not it was discrimination on sexual preference grounds was significant in the decision.

The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If and to the extent that there was discrimination on grounds of political opinion, no justification has been shown for the compelled speech which would be entailed for imposing civil liability for refusing to fulfil the order.
Click to expand...
 
cheesyboy said:
I suppose the question is: can he buy a straight-up gay wedding cake with no slogan?

I look forward to this sequel :D
Click to expand...

the cake he wanted was a ordinary, single tier white wedding cake, with a slogan on and with two Sesame Street characters, we already know that without the slogan he could have bought that cake from that baker, they'd still sell him that cake today even - the only uncertainty there is perhaps the Sesame Street characters re: potential copyright issues
 
Pudney said:
No it didn't, the political aspect was a consideration but whether or not it was discrimination on sexual preference grounds was significant in the decision.
Click to expand...

Lady Hale:
“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”

To be clear, here, they didn't pass judgement on a standard gay cake, just the gay cake in this case, which had the additional provocation of the slogan
 
dowie said:
the cake he wanted was a ordinary, single tier white wedding cake, with a slogan on and with two Sesame Street characters, we already know that without the slogan he could have bought that cake from that baker, they'd still sell him that cake today even - the only uncertainty there is perhaps the Sesame Street characters re: potential copyright issues
Click to expand...
That's not what I asked
 
cheesyboy said:
Lady Hale:
“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”

To be clear, here, they didn't pass judgement on a standard gay cake, just the gay cake in this case, which had the additional provocation of the slogan
Click to expand...


You said the case turned on the political aspect point, it didn't. The political aspect was one argument, but there were others. For example, as posted previously, the bakers were held not to have discriminated against sexual orientation for any reason.

To be clear, they didn't pass judgement on any type of cake. They passed judgement on the action of a bakery company.
 
cheesyboy said:
I suppose the question is: can he buy a straight-up gay wedding cake with no slogan?

I look forward to this sequel :D
Click to expand...

The actual cake he wanted represented no form of sexual-orientation.

He could/should have just purchased the cake from them and then put his own slogan on it at home. But no, deep down he knew that his views would offend the people at the bakers and yet he decided to chance it anyway. Frankly i think he should be lumped (made bankrupt) with the court costs.

As dowie keeps pointing out, this isn't a case where they're refusing to serve him because he's gay, he could have bought a normal victoria sponge cake and he would have been treated just like any other customer.
 
cheesyboy said:
Whatever mate. That's actually less clear about the aspect I was clarifying, but thanks i guess.
Click to expand...

It's a 30 page judgement, they released two others today one at 14 pages and the other 17 pages. To try and boil it down to a short statement is probably a little ambitious and misses some key points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom