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

[dowie]

Not if doing so violates the UK anti-discrimination laws. The issue here is that making a "support gay marriage" emblem does not violate the rights of the baker/t-shirt maker/printer. Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.

Ashers are happy to make wedding cakes, just not ones with the word gay on them. The courts decided (rightfully) that doing so was a direct discrimination against the gay community.

So you'd agree with the hypothetical example presented above? Including the mohammed picture?

also 'Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.' they're not refusing to provide a service in a general sense to that demographic - it is the political message they're opposed to

 

[dowie]

The court disagreed with you.

no it didn't

the court ruled that the political message was an intrinsic part of their identity

it didn't state that the bakers refused to serve gay people in a general sense

 

[dowie]

From the summary of judgement on this case.

Was I correct as a matter of law to hold that the appellants had discriminated against the respondent directly on grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 - Yes;

In short the judge concluded (in part), that Ashers bakery had discriminated against Gareth Lee directly on the grounds of his sexual orientation. So yes the courts do disagree with you.

no, not in terms of what I posted in the relevant post there and I was trying to be clear about that

if you want to change to the wider thread/topic then yes I don't agree that this is right overall (whether that is the law or the way the law has been interpreted here) - though I'm not making any legal arguments and I'm not in any position to state whether the right legal decision was made by the court

however re: my post being questioned:

no it didn't

the court ruled that the political message was an intrinsic part of their identity

it didn't state that the bakers refused to serve gay people in a general sense

Although it is clear that the judge spent some time explaining her conclusion that the appellants had knowledge or perception either consciously or unconsciously that the respondent was gay or associated with others who were gay, she did not rely on that finding in her conclusion. She found that the appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage. If she had come to the view that the order was cancelled because the respondent was perceived as being gay, this would have been the most straightforward case of direct discrimination and would undoubtedly have been plainly expressed by her. We conclude therefore that the finding was not material to her determination.

it isn't straightforward discrimination, the bakers are happy to serve gay people - it is because the political message was 'intrinsically linked' to their sexuality that this became a discrimination case, that they were gay doesn't matter

the bakers aren't refusing to serve gay people in the general sense

anyway - while you're quoting me - do you care to answer the previous question I asked of you a few pages back as quibbling over whether you think I said something the courts agreed/disagreed with is rather sidetracking whereas I'd be interested in the views on the question posed from people in support of this ruling.

 

[dowie]

Ah the old political correctness gone mad defence. We live in a society where individuals should not be refused service or EQUAL rights based on someones prejudices or outdated sense of morals.

So a Muslim baker should print a mohammed cake even if it is against his 'outdated' sense of morals?

The EDL gay wing would like their 'EDL gay wing against homophobic religions' cake printed, complete with mohammed picture. Muslim bakers refusing to do so on religious grounds would be 'discriminating' against them.

 

[dowie]

can you guys just start another thread about bibles or something?

 

[dowie]

Ah nothing like a visit to GD and reading some of the bigoted and ignorant comments in here to destroy your faith in humanity...

rather an empty and pointless post if you're not going to highlight which posts you feel are 'bigoted' and 'ignorant' or attempt to criticise or correct them?

 

[dowie]

Muslim baker and Mohammed cake is a better example for people who think this ruling was a good thing

 

[dowie]

Really? I need to explain it?

The whole thread is dehumanising to a subsection of society based on their sexuality. I see attempts at conflating the issue by tying in religion and throwing out hyperbole to make the point when in actuality the issue is bigotry plain and simple. It's a freaking cake! Ask yourself why they have an issue with gay symbolism? Moreover ask yourself why they're using their religion as an excuse to refuse to make the cake?

This is like the gay marriage argument in that the people that are against it (something that is very topical in Australia at the moment) rely on religion to back up what is clearly a bigoted view of gay people. It's not about religion or the sanctity of the word marriage, it's about using it as an excuse to belittle someone. Are they so insecure in themselves that putting a symbol on a cake (which is not even remotely offensive) is going to impact them in any way shape or form. Give me a break.

Ergo - bigoted and ignorant.

you've still avoided directly citing any of the posts you're criticising as bigoted and ignorant which is the point i was making - just generalising about some vague posts that don't fit your view then calling them 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' is rather lazy

I think the ruling/law is (morally) wrong here and if you think that my argument is bigoted then I'd like you to explain why.

FYI They're happy to serve the people who ordered the cake usually, they're not happy to create this particular cake.

While I don't agree with the baker's views I think they're right to have those views, that isn't bigoted! It is not bigoted to state you think independent businesses shouldn't have to create products they don't approve of.

See muslim baker - mohammed cake/EDL against Islamic homophobia example for an illustration using something more people will likely agree is wrong.

 

[dowie]

Again - why? What possible difference is it going to make to these peoples lives if they put a Queerspace symbol and Burt and Ernie on a cake? What moral outrage is it going to cause other than that they choose to take? What impact is what another couple do or feel for one-another ever going to have on them?

what difference does it make if a muslim draws mohammed on a cake?

They are a cake maker who create cakes with images on them. They were requested to make a cake that symbolises how those two people feel. What difference does it ultimately make to them?

I'm sorry but I don't buy the Mohammed cake or EDL cake argument - you're conflating the argument by throwing in more emotive perspectives. It's not a like for like argument.

Why do you think that?

Just to expand on the context there - my hypothetical was EDL Gay division wanting a cake to campaign against homophobia within Islam

I threw in the mohammed picture as an extra but my original question was with or without the picture.

How do you feel about a muslim baker having to make a cake for say the EDL? Or how about UKIP?

Obviously the message on the cake is again gay rights related.

Point is that businesses ought to be able to turn down requests to make things in support of political views/campaigns they disagree with. simply associating a political view with something protected such as sexuality, race etc.. shouldn't change that. The reasons why someone may not wish to support a political view aren't particularly relevant. You might well think the bakers are bigoted - maybe they are, maybe they have genuine religious opposition - it isn't relevant where their support/lack of support for particular political views comes from but simply that they ought to be free to turn down that sort of custom.

The point of the mohammed cake/EDL was to illustrate the principle using an example that more people could empathise with.

 

[dowie]

Can we get back to gay cakes instead of this gay bible talk please?

 

[dowie]

If a paedo wanted a paedo cake to campaign for lowering the age of consent is he being unfairly discriminated against when refused?

 

[dowie]

Ahh, thread goes back to using paedos as a simile for homosexuality

And the answer is no.

No, there was no simile in my post. If you remember back to GCSE English class a simile is used for direct comparisons with a connecting word.

As for your actual reply, just stating 'the answer is no' isn't generally a very good response.

Back to the point - gay marriage is illegal in NI, gay groups want it legalised.

Some paedos might like a change in age of consent laws. Why are they not allowed to campaign for a change in the law too? Because more people are morally opposed to them whereas illegal gay marriage has more support for a change?

 

[dowie]

Your arguments are just pathetic now, surely you can do better than that?

And the answer is a fairly obvious no because pedophiles are not a protected group.

yet you didn't wish to tackle the previous example re: a gay group in the form of the EDL gay wing wanting a cake from a Muslim baker

you can say that the paedo one is fine as they're not protected... but you don't want to point out the more obvious objection that pedophiles are regarded as abhorrent individuals by our standards and most bakers would not want to print anything on a cake in support of them

 

[dowie]

It's not a completely inappropriate jump to make, both concern the private activities of consenting people, it's just that one is currently legal and the other is not. The age of consent in England was 12 for the best part of 600 years and now it's not.

neither are legal

gay marriage is illegal in NI, the cake was part of a campaign to change the law

 

[dowie]

ehh, discrimination based on sexuality is illegal, so yes, gay people are protection from illegal discrimination. Which is why the baker lost the legal case.

yes but the objection is that you could attach plenty of political campaigns to gay rights, black rights etc..etc.. and now someone who might strongly object to it could be made to create a cake, flyer, poster etc.. supporting it

thus the EDL gay wing, muslim baker scenario

when you remove 'gay' from it then it is normal political stuff that can be turned down but as soon as you associated a political campaign with sexuality then that is apparently protected. That is flawed and wrong IMO.

 

[dowie]

it had already been answered. The Baker could reject service due to their political affiliation, but not the message.

really it isn't clear that they could have done that, the political group is as linked with homosexuality as the message is

that was the reason they were able to win this discrimination case, the link to a protected status

and in the case of the EDL gay wing, they're pretty explicitly linked with homosexuality too

 

[dowie]

They're also explicitly linked with the EDL:

"No sorry, we don't make EDL cakes" = fine

"No sorry, we don't make gay cakes" = not fine.

Whether it's the EDL's gay, black, disabled, Muslim, whatever wing is irrelevant; if they are refusing purely based on the political stance then any other factors can be ignored.

the bakers were refusing based on the political stance/message! The political stance in this instance was a campaign to legalise gay marriage

the political stance in my hypothetical is an an anti homophobia in Islam campaign

you mean to say if they're refusing purely based on the political group, however that is untested and it seems you're likely to fall foul of the same judgement in that the group is inextricably linked to sexuality, race whatever - whether that be black lives matter, the EDL's gay wing etc..

if you can say that a message/campaign is directly linked to sexuality then you can say the same of a group

you can of course turn down the EDL themselves in a more general case

 

[dowie]

Are you being purposely obtuse? The baker could refuse based on the political aspect, not the homosexuality aspect. Political beliefs are not protected.

they are when associated with sexuality

that was the whole basis for this case

they didn't refuse custom because the customers were gay they refused based on the political belief/message on the cake - the campaign to legalise gay marriage in NI where it currently isn't legal

 

[dowie]

Gay marriage isn't illegal in NI. No crime is committed if you perform a gay marriage. It just isn't recognised.

it isn't legal, it is illegal

 

[dowie]

no one is demonising homosexuality, get a grip...