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

[dowie]

It's not really providing material support or facilitating a campaign, they are baking a cake.

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.

I don't think bakeries values should be on political campaigns but rather baking cakes and setting aside everything else.

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.

I don't think comparison with the photographer is comparable since clearly the baker offers the service to begin with aka writing messages and images, where as the photograph fro the onset doesn't offer the service. It would be comparable if the photographer didn't allow certain colourings to some peoples photos and on others.

The photographer clearly does post processing - he's simply refusing to do some forms of it that he dislikes artistically.

Up to this point no issue, its not my beliefs. Just like if I ran a printing service and a client asked me to print bibles. I'm not endorsing the bible or its teaching, I just print stuff.

So would you print BNP fliers? Or could you see that some people wouldn't want to print things they oppose?

That would be something a Muslim could not do by action, difference is that would be across the board rather than selective. It is not endorsing or facilitating, simply something they couldn't do irrespective of the client.

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.

They believe gay marriage is wrong, not writing text for someone else's belief of gay marriage

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.

 

[spudbynight]

So Craterloads, it would be fine then if you were a printer who was Muslim to print images of Mohammed in a bomb vest...you would do this as "you just print stuff" and are no way connected to what you print... Is that correct?

How about insisting on a vegetarian restaurant cooking one a steak?

 

[Craterloads]

snip

Fair enough, ultimately it boils down to the bakeries beliefs which I don't know. If they feel by writing those words they are sinning then you cant exactly argue against it, just saying I don't think writing said words would have been sinful as you wouldn't be supporting said views by offering a service.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

How about insisting on a vegetarian restaurant cooking one a steak?

People don't go to vegetarian restaurants to eat meat. Ashers isn't advertised as a straight or christian bakery hence why people went to get a cake.

 

[elmarko]

How about insisting on a vegetarian restaurant cooking one a steak?

That's like asking the cake making shop to bake them a flapjack.

 

[Tefal]

That's like asking the cake making shop to bake them a flapjack.

most cake shops make flapjacks i think

 

[Castiel]

No castiel...

So what is OK for you, is not OK for someone else.

Printing a picture is just drawing by machine, also as I mentioned earlier inciting hatred or messages which were anti something would / could be objected.

What a weird question considering you knew the answer. Hmm

Its not weird, you seem to have a double standard..first you say that you are not associated with or have any relationship with what you print, on the other hand you say that you wouldn't print anything to which you object. You can do it, yet you say the baker cannot. hmmm

Would you print a picture of Mohammed at all?

 

[Castiel]

That's like asking the cake making shop to bake them a flapjack.

Err, is a cake shop not the place to buy a flapjack in the first place?

 

[Castiel]

People don't go to vegetarian restaurants to eat meat. Ashers isn't advertised as a straight or christian bakery hence why people went to get a cake.

And they could have bought a cake...just not one with a politically sensitive message on it.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

And they could have bought a cake...just not one with a politically sensitive message on it.

And the cake makers could have just made it...... instead of imposing their religious beliefs on other people.

 

[Tombo]

And the cake makers could have just made it...... instead of imposing their religious beliefs on other people.

And the person requesting the cake could have gone elsewhere... instead of imposing their political beliefs on other people.

 

[Castiel]

And the cake makers could have just made it...... instead of imposing their religious beliefs on other people.

They were not imposing anything, as the people could have gone elsewhere (and they did), if anything the imposition is now on the baker as they are being sued for not doing it..who is imposing their political belief's on who?

And the person requesting the cake could have gone elsewhere... instead of imposing their political beliefs on other people.

quite, and they did so the whole litigation is superficial at best.

 

[elmarko]

most cake shops make flapjacks i think

you know what I mean.

For the purpose of this analogy this cake shop only makes standard cakes.

 

[Castiel]

you know what I mean.

For the purpose of this analogy this cake shop only makes standard cakes.

In which case they simply say, "we don't make flapjacks" and the person goes to another Baker who does make flapjacks...alternatively you could sue Baker number one for not supplying you with a flapjack.

 

[mejinks]

So Muslim owned subways are allowed to refuse to serve you non Halal food on religious grounds, but non minority establishments aren't allowed to refuse? Riiiiight.

 

[cheesyboy]

So Muslim owned subways are allowed to refuse to serve you non Halal food on religious grounds, but non minority establishments aren't allowed to refuse? Riiiiight.

How are the circumstances comparable?! Unless you've been sidetracked by them both selling food?

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

They were not imposing anything, as the people could have gone elsewhere (and they did), if anything the imposition is now on the baker as they are being sued for not doing it..who is imposing their political belief's on who?

Where did the gays impose their beliefs on the bakers, they asked them to bake a cake and the bakers refused because of the "political" message, i.e. they don't "agree" with homosexuality and are using the bible to hide behind to try and justify their discrimination. It's moronic, like disagreeing against brown hair.

The bakers could have simply made the cake and none of this would have happened, we have laws against discrimination so why should the gays, not knowing Ashers would react like this, have just moved on to another baker.

So Muslim owned subways are allowed to refuse to serve you non Halal food on religious grounds, but non minority establishments aren't allowed to refuse? Riiiiight.

They are advertised as being halal, if you don't agree then you can go to one that isn't. Ashers isn't advertised as being a straight or christian bakery so they can't just discriminate against someone just because their made up sky wizard said something that has been translated into many different languages by many different civilisations over thousands of years.

Play chinese whispers and imagine that on a large scale being played for thousands of years and how the message will have been twisted beyond the original message.

 

[Castiel]

Where did the gays impose their beliefs on the bakers, they asked them to bake a cake and the bakers refused because of the "political" message, i.e. they don't "agree" with homosexuality and are using the bible to hide behind to try and justify their discrimination. It's moronic, like disagreeing against brown hair.

They don't agree with or wish to be associated with the campaign to legalise Same Sex Marriage..that is their right, are you suggesting that a person should be forced to support or by implication be associated with a political campaign to change the law simply because it involves a minority?

If the Baker is found to be in contravention of discrimination laws in Northern Ireland, then that would equate to an imposition put upon them to support or by implication be associated with a political campaign simply because it addresses a particular minority group. This would set precedence, so that pretty much any political campaign would have to be implicitly supported by any business, for an extreme example: If a group of White Supremacists wanted to campaign to change the law on equal rights for Coloured people, would the Bakery (or printer) have to make the slogans and have their business associated with such a campaign? Because while the example is an extreme version, it is the same thing..we are asking someone to support by implication a political campaign to change the law or be subject to prosecution? Is that fair? Is that what a Democratic Society does?

The Bakers did not refuse to give them a cake, they refused to print what is a controversial slogan on the Cake. They could have bought any cake they wanted without that slogan.

Its not moronic. What is moronic is suing someone simply because they disagree with you.

The bakers could have simply made the cake and none of this would have happened, we have laws against discrimination so why should the gays, not knowing Ashers would react like this, have just moved on to another baker.

They were not discriminated against..,Ashers never refused to serve them based on their gender or orientation...they simply refused to associate their business with a controversial political campaign in Northern Ireland, the gender, creed, colour or orientation of the person asking is immaterial..they would all be refused equally.

Also we have no idea whether the Baker was targeted by the Activists or not, but in any case they did not have to begin litigation against the Baker as they should have simply accepted that their campaign is not universally supported. few rarely are.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

So Muslim owned subways are allowed to refuse to serve you non Halal food on religious grounds, but non minority establishments aren't allowed to refuse? Riiiiight.

Not comparable, there are still Muslim owned Subways that will serve non halal.
The 200+ shops that altered their menus did it because of the trade they get.

 

[cheesyboy]

Not comparable, there are still Muslim owned Subways that will serve non halal.
The 200+ shops that altered their menus did it because of the trade they get.

It's not comparable because the Muslim subways are NOT discriminating against anyone by only offering halal meat. The bakers ARE discrimimating against gays by not making gay cake.