No you're not... or at least shouldn't be - that's the whole distinction that will have to be made here - it's the customer that's protected from discrimination not the individual products... you're not forced to support something just because a customer wants you to. A baker isn't obliged to go ahead any more than a newspaper is obliged to compromise his editorial stance and allow an advert that goes against it.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
No you're not... or at least shouldn't be - that's the whole distinction that will have to be made here - it's the customer that's protected from discrimination not the individual products... you're not forced to support something just because a customer wants you to. A baker isn't obliged to go ahead any more than a newspaper is obliged to compromise his editorial stance and allow an advert that goes against it.
That's exactly my point - you're protected from discrimination in that they can't refuse to sell you something based on who you are. You don't however have the right to tell them what to do... if they don't want to make a cake supporting your campaign then they've got a right to not do so. You can't force people to support your views... creative people have some discretion over what they'll create/put their name too.
I'm not sure it applies in that way... rather they've not discriminated against the customer as a result of their politics - they've refused to make a certain product/endorse a particular political view. I don't believe NI law requires everyone to support any political view... rather its there to stop nationalists discriminating against unionists and vice versa as customers... in the same way you're not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, race, etc..etc..
Its again the product not the customer they've taken issue with and the principle remains - if we're going to have freedom of speech/freedom of expression then you can't force people to support your views/beliefs, force them to create something they don't want to create... this is separate from simply refusing to serve someone on the basis of who that person is.
A B&B owner, for example, is clearly discriminating if they refuse a room to a gay couple... they're not discriminating however if they turn down an extra payment/refuse a request for a supplied rainbow flag and gay rights slogan to be flown from the roof of the B&B while a bunch of gay couples are staying there for some pride event etc... Not discriminating against customers doesn't meant you have to accept any request from those customers and/or are forced to support any view those customers want to express. If that were the case then I'll buy a full page spread in Al-Arab newspaper for my Mohammed cartoon/god probably doesn't exist advert.
Agreed it doesn't necessarily... however it could be seen as providing material support... more importantly refusal to create/produce can easily be seen as not endorsing/opposing. That's the main point - they oppose the idea (not the customer) they refuse to create something supporting/endorsing that idea.
This is no different to a printer refusing a flier or a newspaper/other company refusing advertising.
The problem is that the idea relates to a particular group - it's not a fundamental part of that group's identity but it's something a majority of that group supports. That's where opposing that idea is being seen as discriminating against that group. While you could argue that the regusal of NI to marry gays is itself discriminatory(I'm pretty sure it is) I don't believe that refusal to support/decision to oppose the campaign is. That's simply a freedom of speech/freedom of expression issue.
'Gay marriage' isn't a protected group, the campaign group for it isn't a protected group... these might be things lots of members of a protected group support... which is why we've seen the knee jerk reaction over this but it's again refusing a product/idea not refusing a customer.
Businesses do have a right to endorse/refuse to endorse things - you've had plenty of examples if this already... Castel for example and his transport company's position on advertising, Raymond and his photography policy... some printers refuse some political fliers, some newspapers refuse advertising....
They could refuse to create any cake using the colour green if they wanted to... that's entirely their choice as a business.
Last edited:
What about them? Are they commissioned to create things? Or are you confusing refusing to create a particular product with refusing to serve particular customers.
Incidentally it's the business not the employees making the call... also a refuse company could have a policy not to collect certain waste.
It doesn't necessarily, true. However a refusal to print can more easily be seen as a refusal to support/refusal to endorse... disassociating yourself from the campaign/idea/proposal you disagree with. I think they've got every right to do this as they have freedom of speech/freedom of expression, you can't force a business/person to produce something they fundamentally disagree with.
I disagree with their stance and am pro-gay marriage, but I support their right to do this - they've dismissed the campaign/idea not the customer.
not baking a cake by default means they're not providing any material support/not involved with something they object to
they can, as a business or company, endorse whatever they want within reason... campaign for issues, chose to not campaign for other issues - oppose issues etc...etc... You get to chose what you will and won't produce etc..
you could equally say that a wedding photographer's job is to take the pictures and produce them as the couple want - but we've already heard from one wedding photographer in this thread who simply won't allow say selective colouring because he doesn't like it - that's simply his choice in dictating what he is and isn't prepared to create. A business doesn't have to just accept any job, be told exactly what to create - they have every right to turn down jobs, turn down business... so long as they're not discriminating against the customer him/herself but rather objecting to the product then there shouldn't be an issue.
Freedom of speech isn't dependent upon you only objecting to approved 'wrong' issues... if we apply criteria to what speech we're allowed to object to then its no longer free.
OK so as a Muslim would you happily make a cake stating 'Jesus is the son of God' for a Christian group? What about if it included a picture of Jesus (so a picture of a prophet...)? I'd presume that lots of Muslims would object to the second and quite a few would object to the first too... and they'd have every right to. You can't oblige someone to create something they don't believe in. It doesn't have to be hateful... such a cake isn't in itself but it also goes against the beliefs of another group of people.
Sure maybe some Muslims could create the first cake and argue that they're just making the cake and don't agree with the message.... but then again gay marriage is controversial for some Christians - rightly or wrongly they see it as something that is wrong, is 'sinful'.... Maybe baking this cake for the baker is like a Romanian printer being asked to print some UKIP fliers...
Last edited:
Except they're not just baking a cake, they have no objection to baking a cake... They've been asked to bake one for a campaign group with a message in it - by not baking it they've not provided material support.
It doesn't matter what products/messages you think someone else's business should and shouldn't cater to - it's up to the business owner. Whether that means they don't make green cakes because they don't like the colour green or they exercise discretion over the messages they're happy to print on cakes.
The photographer clearly does post processing - he's simply refusing to do some forms of it that he dislikes artistically.
So would you print BNP fliers? Or could you see that some people wouldn't want to print things they oppose?
It's something they could do physically, they just wouldn't as a result if their beliefs... Why would that belief be OK but other personal beliefs not be an OK objection? You either have freedom of speech/expression or you don't... You can't elevate some beliefs/choices and decide they're more worthy of protection.
No they quite clearly believe that that would be wrong too else we wouldn't have this issue in the first place. It might not be an officially endorsed religious position such as not drawing a prophet... but that isn't important - the important point is that they believe creating that product would be wrong... that is their belief whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
you could argue that supplying halal discriminates against Sikhs who are forbidden from eating such meat... but then again a Sikh customer could easily go for a non-meat option... The point is the business chooses what to produce/sell.
its not a 'gay cake' I shouldn't need to explain this but it is a pretty fundamental point here - a cake can't be gay, they're not discriminating by refusing to create a particular cake.... you're not obliged to support gay marriage - some gay people don't sport gay marriage - it isn't a fundamental part of being gay... being attracted to someone from the opposite sex is what makes someone gay. Supporting or not supporting the legal options gay couples have for registering their relationship should they chose to is an opinion, view, political stance... you're not forced or obliged to assist in supporting a political campaign and you ought to be allowed to disassociate yourself from one.
It doesn't matter what the bible does or doesn't say or whether they've correctly interpreted it or not... its completely irrelevant. The only important point is that they don't believe in gay marriage (regardless of where that belief comes from), in fact they oppose gay marriage... that's all that matters. They oppose something, they don't want to create a product that endorses that thing they oppose.
Yes they might well be raging homophobes... I don't care if they are or not - if they refused to serve a gay customer in general purely because they were gay then I'd say the gay customer does have a case and they should be sued for discrimination... The wheelchair analogy is silly - where there is an obligation to provide disabled access then they're clearly in the wrong.There isn't an obligation however to have to support everything a protected group believes in...
Pretty dodgy - if Britain First had a Britain First 'Gay wing' they'd be 'inextricably linked' to same sex relations too.
Could they then sue if a Muslim owned (or for that matter, business owned by anyone with an above normal IQ and a conscience) refused to bake a cake/print a leaflet supporting Britain First's gay wing... fighting 'homophobia carried by those muslamics wot we don't like innit'
I mean campaigning against Christianity, Islam etc.. are things a gay rights group could quite legitimately campaign against as much as campaigning for gay marriage.
Could they then sue if a Muslim owned (or for that matter, business owned by anyone with an above normal IQ and a conscience) refused to bake a cake/print a leaflet supporting Britain First's gay wing... fighting 'homophobia carried by those muslamics wot we don't like innit'
I mean campaigning against Christianity, Islam etc.. are things a gay rights group could quite legitimately campaign against as much as campaigning for gay marriage.
Yeah but in that instance they were discriminated against for being gay.
In this instance no one is stopping them from buying a cake, it is buying a cake and having a political message printed on it that the owners don't agree with.
I mean say a protestant wants an 'orange order' cake made by a Catholic baker, obviously the orange order is 'inextricably linked' to his religion - is it then religious discrimination if the Catholic baker then doesn't want to bake it? Or shouldn't the banker, who might well otherwise be perfectly happy to serve a protestant a cake, be allowed to turn down that specific request for that specific cake due to the political message the customer wanted on it (not who the customer is) even if the political message is linked somewhat to a protected part of the customer's identity (religion, sexuality etc..)
The ruling (and/or) the law sucks - whether the ruling is right as far as the law is concerned isn't something I'm qualified to comment on - but in terms of right/wrong I think this is very wrong - whether that is the result of legislation or dodgy interpretation of legislation.
Last edited:
This all seems very close to trolling more then 'rights' but theres a youtube vid like that from the kfc branch in dubai someone asks for bacon and I cant post it here
Sydney AFAIK
you'd potentially be arrested for trying that (and especially for filming it) in Dubai
So should a printer who currently refuses to print leaflets for the EDL now have to print leaflets for a hypothetical 'EDL gay division' for their anti homophobia campaign against Islam?
I mean it is a political campaign 'inextricably linked' to the sexuality of the client.
It seems these bakers would have been free to turn down other political messages that conflicted with their beliefs had they chosen to but because this political message was linked to homosexuality then it becomes protected????
nope I wouldn't
and likewise I wouldn't be happy with them refusing someone because they're gay
I'm not quite sure what your point is - are you trying to attack a position I'm not even arguing for?
they could have ordered a cake, it was a cake with a specific political message that was denied
but that is a complete lie and if mr and mrs gay couple then asked a friend to go in and order another custom cake then that lie would be revealed
what they could have perhaps done however is simply stated that
'while we're happy to serve anyone regardless of their race, religion or orientation I'm sorry to have to inform you that we have a policy of not printing cakes with any form of political message'
then they're no longer turning down that particular message (which the judge ruled was 'inextricably linked' to the customer's sexuality) but have got a blanket ban, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation, on *any* political messages on cakes. Given that they probably don't get too many political message requests they can then stick to that rule going forwards.
you've just agreed with the person you quoted who also pointed out that the fact the customer was gay isn't important
And that is something I think should be allowed.
Shouldn't a baker, printer, t-shirt maker etc.. be able to decide which political messages they're going to support and object/refuse business from those they don't support.
Usually they can but I constructed an example earlier in the thread to illustrate the principle using something more people will object to.
(fictitious)* EDL gay wing wanting an 'EDL gay wing against homophobia in Islam' cake made by a Muslim baker...(with or without a picture of Mohamed on it)
Now normally printers etc.. do turn down political messages by extremist groups - however it seems from this ruling that if your political message has something protected associated with it - such as gay people campaigning for gay marriage or in my example campaigning against homophobia then it is suddenly protected.
Do you think the above is also 'discrimination' (feel free to consider UKIP in place of EDL if you're going to make an exception based on the political group)
(*I'm assuming they don't have a 'gay wing' but you never know)
Last edited:
