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

[The Geezer]

Isn't it freedom of speech to be allowed to turn down work? If someone came to a garage and said may you fix my car and he said no then isn't that legal?

A garage can turn down work as long it does not conflict with the Equality Act (law). If the garage said "sorry mate, you're homosexual we don't repair cars owned by homosexuals" then the garage are breaking the law.

I think the gay couple knew it would cause this reaction and is why they decided to rub it in the owners face.

There is no evidence that this is the case.

 

[spoffle]

Why do people keep saying that offering a business service you are "supporting" their cause, rather than just providing a service.

By your logic, a sign maker is 'supporting' the message for every signs he makes. So if he makes the Lib Dems a few signs he thus should be banned from making any other signs for other political parties because he has already shown who he 'supports' by taking the order.

If Ashers make a cake for someone saying "World's Best Mum" have the management all just said their mums aren't the best, given by making the cake they were fully endorsing that the customer's mum was the best in the world?

Does the cake designer truly have to believe the customer's mum is the best in the world or refuse it? Of course not, they are simply fulfilling a request that has no impact on their personal view on their own parents.

If that's the way they feel, then that's what they feel they're doing. For the most part, I do graphics design. If I got asked to do a job for something I didn't agree with, say UKIP or BNP related, I wouldn't do it because in my view I'd be supporting the message they're giving out.

It's got nothing to do with being banned from making stuff for other parties, groups or companies, though. That is logically fallacious.

This is actually something I'm quite ambivalent to, as there are multiple levels to this, and at some level, someone is being discriminated against in some form.

 

[D.P.]

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually homophobic, or idiots just because they broke the law.

Yes it does, there was no rational reason to refuse the order. they self-admitted they refused the order due to their homophobic beliefs.

I don't see it as a positive thing that people get forced in to doing something they don't want to do that goes against their beliefs.

Then they should work in such a customer facing job, they had an easy choice. Most o us have to do things against our beliefs and we have zero choice on the matter. I don't like it when my tax money is spent on wars or pointlessly long prison sentences, it goes against my beliefs, but I have no right not to pay taxes unlike the bakers who had the freedom to change careers. The bakers had their freedom to hold what ever belief they want, but that belief cannot discriminate against others when running a business.

Regardless of whether the beliefs are stupid or not, it's more a matter of do you really want someone providing you with a service who really doesn't want to provide that service, but begrudgingly oblige just because the law says they have to?

Again, they shouldn't be in a public facing job if they have such issues.

Morality goes both ways really, whether you agree with beliefs or not. Legislation isn't going to change what someone wants to believe. The same way legislation doesn't stop people from being racist, it just puts a legal limit on what they can and can't do. Personally, I'd prefer to know that such people had such issues, and I'd happily go elsewhere.

The laws aren't supposed to stop people believing in what they want to, just prevent them affecting others.

IF someone is robbed on the street do you think they should just get on with their lives or do you think it should be reported to the authorities so the criminals can face justice? The bakers broke the law and must face the consequences for that.

 

[Haggisman]

It's not the same at all. A comparison would be two black people asking them to put a statement of support to the black panthers on it

Er... no, because that would be support for a political party, not for being black

Isn't it freedom of speech to be allowed to turn down work? If someone came to a garage and said may you fix my car and he said no then isn't that legal? I think the gay couple knew it would cause this reaction and is why they decided to rub it in the owners face.

Depends why he said no. If it was because you were black/gay/female/in a wheelchair, then it would be illegal. But then only a complete idiot would actually give that as the reason...

Which brings me onto...

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually homophobic, or idiots just because they broke the law.

Well, clearly they are idiots, because they refused to make the cake on the grounds of it supporting gay marriage, if they'd refused to make it because they were "too busy", then nothing would have happened.

And they're clearly homophobic because they have negative feelings towards homosexuals/homosexual activity.

I don't see it as a positive thing that people get forced in to doing something they don't want to do that goes against their beliefs.

Regardless of whether the beliefs are stupid or not, it's more a matter of do you really want someone providing you with a service who really doesn't want to provide that service, but begrudgingly oblige just because the law says they have to?

Morality goes both ways really, whether you agree with beliefs or not. Legislation isn't going to change what someone wants to believe. The same way legislation doesn't stop people from being racist, it just puts a legal limit on what they can and can't do. Personally, I'd prefer to know that such people had such issues, and I'd happily go elsewhere.

Whilst I sort of agree with that, at the same time, where do you draw the line?

If e.g. a bus driver refuses to provide a service to someone because they're gay/black/disabled/christian, should that be fine and the person have to walk, or should the bus driver be forced to treat the person equally, regardless of their own beliefs?

Legislation also sends a clear message that bigoted behaviour isn't really acceptable, and hopefully will help to move towards a society where the legislation is no longer required.

 

[D.P.]

The flip side of this is that freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence, though.

And it never has been and never well for precisely these reasons!


Next time you are going through airport security shout out that you have a bomb in your bag and unless you get 10million pound you will blow everyone up. See how far your freedom of speech gets you!

 

[D.P.]

If that's the way they feel, then that's what they feel they're doing. For the most part, I do graphics design. If I got asked to do a job for something I didn't agree with, say UKIP or BNP related, I wouldn't do it because in my view I'd be supporting the message they're giving out.

It's got nothing to do with being banned from making stuff for other parties, groups or companies, though. That is logically fallacious.

This is actually something I'm quite ambivalent to, as there are multiple levels to this, and at some level, someone is being discriminated against in some form.

The bakers aren't being discriminated against, they can have their beliefs and no one has told them they have to personally accept homosexuals. The actually business has been forced to provide equal service to all customers. The bakers can believe in what ever homophobic sky pixy they can imagine, it is their freedom to do that, what they can't do it operate their business in such a way that those beliefs discriminate.

People are free to discriminate, companies are not.

 

[spudbynight]

The baker offered a service where they put text on cakes, they denied this service to clients based purely on their sexual orientation.

Are you really that stupid?

They denied service based solely on the message, not on the sexual orientation of the customer.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Are you really that stupid?

They denied service based solely on the message, not on the sexual orientation of the customer.

Yet the courts found otherwise, I'm sure they were privy to more information than you are.

 

[balky12]

Yet the courts found otherwise, I'm sure they were privy to more information than you are.

He does make a good point though. If a hetrosexual couple went in there and asked for the same, the outcome probably would have been the same...

A bakery once turned down my request... 'Christian ****'... maybe I should have kicked up a fuss.

 

[spudbynight]

Yet the courts found otherwise, I'm sure they were privy to more information than you are.

Have you read the judgement, in full?

I have, it is absurd. The Ashers bakery was persecuted, not for what they did, but for what they believe. We have entered into thoughtcrime and I am very worried about the implications of this.

 

[cheesyboy]

He does make a good point though. If a hetrosexual couple went in there and asked for the same, the outcome probably would have been the same...

What part of the bakery manager saying the below quote makes you think it would have been the same for a hetero couple?

"The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

 

[cheesyboy]

Have you read the judgement, in full?

I have, it is absurd. The Ashers bakery was persecuted, not for what they did, but for what they believe. We have entered into thoughtcrime and I am very worried about the implications of this.

It's not a "thoughtcrime" when you actually deny service based on your thoughts

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Have you read the judgement, in full?

I have, it is absurd. The Ashers bakery was persecuted, not for what they did, but for what they believe. We have entered into thoughtcrime and I am very worried about the implications of this.

Rightly so, that's why we have equality and discrimination laws.

 

[balky12]

What part of the bakery manager saying the below quote makes you think it would have been the same for a hetero couple?

They disagreed with the pro gay marriage slogan they requested?

So if a heterosexual couple went into that same bakery, and asked the manager to put a pro gay marriage slogan on their cake, you think the manager would have happily done it?

 

[RDM]

Have you read the judgement, in full?

I have, it is absurd. The Ashers bakery was persecuted, not for what they did, but for what they believe. We have entered into thoughtcrime and I am very worried about the implications of this.

They weren't though. They were prosecuted for what they did, they refused service due to an issue over sexuality. You are free to dislike homosexuals as much as you like, that isn't a crime. However when you run a business you agree to abide by certain laws, of which the anti discrimination laws are part.

 

[ginjaninja]

...Happy confident people have less hate in their hearts, tolerate and celebrate the widest possible differences and perhaps go out of there way to sacrifice a bit of their own need/pride/certainty in the hope of a happier outcome.

We wouldnt want the state telling us what do. we wouldnt want the state to feel it had the need to. We wouldnt knowingly rub someone up the wrong way for the best of intentions if it was reasonably avoidable.

If there was no baker that would bite my hand off to take my business to decorate a cake the way i wanted it, then perhaps i need to compromise.

Its a cake! so if minds cant be changed in a day, its not the end off the world, try a more softly softly approach..this is what we do when we want to bring people with us from a contrary position.

 

[cheesyboy]

They disagreed with the pro gay marriage slogan they requested?

So if a heterosexual couple went into that same bakery, and asked the manager to put a pro gay marriage slogan on their cake, you think the manager would have happily done it?

You're saying that it's not discriminatory because no-one would be allowed a gay cake?

 

[Dis86]

They disagreed with the pro gay marriage slogan they requested?

So if a heterosexual couple went into that same bakery, and asked the manager to put a pro gay marriage slogan on their cake, you think the manager would have happily done it?

That's the same point I've been making for yonks.

 

[Dis86]

You're saying that it's not discriminatory because no-one would be allowed a gay cake?

Yes!!! They are not discriminating against gay people. They do not accept or recognise gay marriage. Two totally separate things.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes!!! They are not discriminating against gay people. They do not accept or recognise gay marriage. Two totally separate things.

Is it discriminatory to allow straight couples to marry but not gay ones?
Is it discriminatory to allow mixed sex couples to stay in your hotel but not same sex ones?
Is it discriminatory to allow straight couples to get family discounts at tourist attractions but not homosexual ones?

Because those gay people could just go and hetero-up and enjoy the same privileges as straights, couldn't they, so no discrimination here