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

The case hinged on the cake being the issue for the bakers not the gays. Common sense really. People can refuse to make things, it doesn't make them discriminatory. It makes them discriminatory if they'd make the same cake for someone else.

Bad legal advice and someone else other than the taxpayer should be coughing up.
 
Semple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Any normal person might have not been that impressed that the printout on the cake was the issue but just gone to another baker. It was simply an attack on these peoples beliefs, plain and simple.

I hope their business thrives, inspite of all that has gone on.

Some people are whining on now that this decision opens the door to bigotry but on the contrary, it keeps freedoms that no doubt the gay community themselves value.

Would be great if people could just get on with life rather than turning everything into this constant petty offence culture. I don’t agree with many people, their lifestyle choices, their religious or political views or even their taste in football team or clothes, but it doesn’t mean I hate them.

We’ve let government have too much say in raising our children for the past 30-40 years and this is the fruits of the Labour… pun intended.
 
cheesyboy said:
You claimed it was a win for the right of expression.

In actual fact, corporate entities have no right of expression. they did, however, win this case. So my point was "why are you so happy for that?"
Click to expand...
The people that run the business clearly have rights and the courts agreed with that view.

Actually a business can refuse your business. You as a consumer are invited 'to treat'.
 
Freddie1980 said:
I question the sort of people there employing at the Equalities Commission, to spend all that public money on a cake seems like a waste of time to tackle someones narrow minded prejudice. The damage was done to the bakery as soon as it was reported in the news.
Click to expand...
It's actually done the bakery a lot of good. Why do you denigrate someone's religious beliefs by calling them narrow minded?
 
Thread too big to find the update. Googled it.

Both sides of this were bankrolled. The bakers were backed by a christian group and well, the prosecution was the state.

That's a ton of cash blown on creating the clarification in the law of being allowed to be equally discriminatory to everyone (presuming the discrimination action doesn't break another law).

I'm happy with it. The result ofc not how it got there, that's quite farcical.
 
Mason- said:
Corporate entities are run by people. People make the decisions (for now). Why should your company be forced to make a product which supports a political view that you don't support? As has been pointed out in the case by the justices, the person is not being discriminated against, if a straight person asked for the same thing they would have denied it. They are choosing not to do it, not because the person is gay, but because they would be producing something which is promoting something that they disagree with.
Click to expand...

The result going the other way could have resulted in a muslim baker being forced to make a cake with Mohammed on it, or a Jewish baker being forced to make a cake denying the holocaust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom