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

[dowie]

No. He is an employee, and as such it is up to the company to decide what advertisements they run on the side of their bus, what livery and other decorations the bus has, and so on, not the driver.

They may choose to offer him an alternative vehicle to drive, but they are not and should not be obliged to.

I'm a bit torn on this one.

What would you say if it was instead say an advert from an atheist group saying "There's probably no god, stop worrying and enjoy your life" or perhaps "There's probably no god, stop worrying and enjoy your life" or words to that effect and a Christian or Muslim driver refused to drive the bus with that advert on?

Ditto but the atheists are more militant and now a Mohammed cartoon is involved along with a cartoon of Jesus or perhaps a political advert for the BNP?

I mean currently some muslim staff members in shops will refuse to sell alcohol at their tills or won't want to handle bacon etc.. I'm not sure to what extent their employers can take disciplinary action there should they want to vs protection of religious rights at any employment tribunal.

 

[dowie]

Should just get me on it. Would have the whole thing sorted in five minutes.

It is unacceptable to refused to serve a person because of their sexuality etc: “I’d like a cake please” “sorry I don’t sell cakes to gays” = illegal

It is unacceptable to demand a bespoke / personal service that makes someone feel uncomfortable on sexual / cultural grounds etc: “I’d like to order a custom cake that celebrates a certain sexuality” “sorry but we’d rather not for religious grounds” = acceptable

I’m sure that many businesses would be delighted to make that cake.

It's taken you 5 years though, not 5 minutes

This is the view I had at the start of the thread and I had various members disputing it.

 

[dowie]

Should have just been chucked out for being a load of old nonsense

Indeed, the commentary/arguments around it were a load of bunk - the political message was the reason for the refusal (could have probably turned him down on copyright grounds too), they didn't refuse to bake him a cake or to bake him a wedding cake they refused to bake him a cake with that message on.

If people think the baker should be forced to bake such a cake then I'd like to hear their arguments on a Muslim baker making a Jesus & Mo cake for a gay atheist or a pro-remain printer printing UKIP flyers for a gay UKIP candidate etc...

in my day we'd have spat in the cake or something and made it gladly

That's the other issue, if you really thought the bakers were nasty bigots who hated you would you really want them anywhere near your food. I do wonder if it was in part a political stunt knowing full well they'd turn him down.

 

[dowie]

Though I agree with what you say, I think it was a bit more complicated than that. For example-it would have similarities to trying to force a Muslim to sell/handle pork or a vegan or vegetarian refusing to sell/cook meat

I think that's a bad comparison - if someone wishes to run a vegan restaurant say they're not obliged to stock meat, nor is a Muslim butcher obliged to sell pork etc...

In this case the baker does sell cakes, in particular, they take commissions for customisable cakes, a good comparison would be someone else who takes commissions turning down work which they find objectionable too - for example a Muslim baker refusing a Jesus and Mo cake for an atheist, he's not refusing someone on the basis of their religion (or lack of it) but rather because he objects to the thing being requested - the atheist can still order a cake from him, just not one like that.

 

[dowie]

I didn't illustrate the example I was referring to completely due to generalising about it. Thanks.

I have since elaborated on it refering to the Muslim guy working in the butcher's refusing to serve and handle pork on religious grounds to customers that consume it.

Apparently that was acceptable, without either issue or complaint. The owners of the bakery maintained the provision of the cake with the signage supporting gay marriages, ran counter to their religious beliefs /sensibilities. I don't see any material difference since both arguments are still centred around religious beliefs ?

Well I literally just explained so if you can't see it or see why the other examples ift better then I'm not sure I can help you. A Muslim employee having an issue with his employer just isn't the same thing and if his employer wishes to mitigate it by simply allowing him to not handle certain products then that's up to them.

 

[dowie]

I can see what you're saying now I'm not using a phone- and I'm not saying or suggesting your examples are not better either?
I am simply saying that the beliefs associated with the examples are similar/the same. Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning? The Muslim wasn't having issues with his employer but the customers

The issue is one for the employer there, the business does sell the thing being requested, the employee doesn’t wish to handle it. The customer can still buy the thing from the business, they just need another staff member to handle it.

 

[dowie]

It's still a belief that prevents him from selling it which is similar/same for both cases/individuals.

Yes there is a belief involved but the customer can still buy the product, the business doesn’t face a lawsuit from the customer, the only issue is a potential employment law one re whether the employer wants to make allowances for that employee or tell them they’re obliged to do their job or find a new one.

AFAIK the employer could tell them they have to serve it. A supermarket might be lenient and make allowances, a muslim going for a job in a pub but declaring he only wants to serve soft drinks would likely be told to do one.

 

[dowie]

The whole thing surrounded whether it was discriminatory to either side, so naturally if there's no reason to be suspicious about that then no there would not have been a trial.

I imagine however if a bakery only served men and a woman tried to purchase a cake where said service is denied, they might have felt the need to go to court as well.

That’s just silly, they didn’t refuse to serve him because he’s gay, he could still buy a cake from them, they simply turned down a particular custom request.

A hypothetical bakery only serving men has nothing to do with this.

Incidentally it’s funny to look back at the start of the thread and see how many people couldn’t grasp these sorts of arguments, some people seem to have knee jerk reactions to this stuff and don’t think clearly about the principles etc..

 

[dowie]

Indeed no-one was denied a service that the bakery would have provided to another customer. The specific request would have been declined regardless of who was asking.

I think some people are getting it now, especially after the result + see the article by Tatchell posted above from when the case went to appeal in 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

Like most gay and equality campaigners, I initially condemned the Christian-run Ashers Bakery in Belfast over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan[...] Now, two days before the case goes to appeal, I have changed my mind.
[...]
His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order.

But you only need to look at the first few pages of this thread to see where that same point was made and people really couldn't grasp it:

What people need to remember is that a business is not a person, you are allowed to not bake cakes for gay people if that's how you feel in a private matter. Once you start a business however you agree to comply with the equality laws of the land - it's that simple.

Illustrating the point re: the right to object to custom requests re: political messaging you don't endorse with more obvious analogies just leads to contempt for the analogy rather than stopping to think about the point being illustrated:

Should a Pakistani baker be able to refuse a BNP cake, a Romanian Baker a UKIP cake? A N.I. Catholic Baker an Orange Order cake?

Because equal rights for gay people cake is the same as a "we hate brown people" BNP cake.

More examples:

So as long as I let black guests book the other rooms for white people and let white guests book the attic for black people I am not discriminating?

They didn't refuse to serve because the applicants were gay, but they still refused for the reason that they discriminate against gays.

Why don't you replace gay with black, and then see how you feel about being denied the right to have what you want on your cake, so instead of having bert and ernie on there you have, say, beyonce and jay-z (only black couple i can think of right now). If someone said you couldn't have the cake because it's black people, would you be upset? I certainly would be.

Fact is that neither sexuality, nor race, are a choice, and therefore discriminating based on either is disgusting.

^^^ this sort of knee-jerk reaction, not getting that the bakers weren't discriminating based on sexuality but exercising a choice not to endorse a political message is what perhaps has led to this farce being drawn out for so long.

 

[dowie]

... so if the cake company had provided a computer controlled icing machine which could have printed directly a message on the cake, with no need for the defendents to perfrom any manual task could that similarly have been appealed.

Doubt it. It's just an example precedent re: someone exercising freedom of expression, that their presence and physical action was sufficient active participation. The bakers don't really need this as it's literally their company that was requested to create the proposed cake, they're already participating when they choose whether to approve the design or not - whether the cake is then made by a machine or some employee isn't relevant (the owners might not even make most of the orders themselves anyway - it's still their company and their call re: what values, politics etc. they support).

The bottom line is really echoed in point 52. freedom of expression, the right not to express an opinion.