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

[Sankari]

It's not discriminatory to cut a gay, it's only discriminatory to cut a gay if you're cutting them for being gay.

Excellent, that makes perfect sense thank you.

Was there ever a description of what they actually wanted on the cake?

He had wanted them to make a cake that included a slogan that said "support gay marriage" along with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, and the logo of the Queerspace organisation.

(Source).

 

[thep02]

Was there ever a description of what they actually wanted on the cake?

Just them in a nude fivesome with some friends in mid ejaculation during their stag party, nothing too offensive.

 

[Haggisman]

There is nothing wrong with a law ensuring rights are protected, the issue comes from the use or abuse of it. When cases occur in which a law designed to protect people is invoked wrongly because someone doesn't like another persons decision, it causes disgruntlement. It isn't going to make someone suddenly be anti gay/Christian or whatever is relevant to the situation, but it can cause frustration and a lack of interest in understanding - which often results in glib comments that have appeared in this thread, those that made them are unlikely to be homophobes, they are simply frustrated.

In the case of the B&B couple, that is discrimination and without a doubt they were justly pulled up for it.

In the case of the Cake seller, as mentioned, we cannot be sure what truly happened, but based on the details it suggests the Bakers had no issue serving the gay couple, their issue was with the design of a cake - and simply because of the content of the design the situation was escalated.
Had it been any number of other designs which the Bakers were uncomfortable with then nothing would have happened because it wouldn't be considered discrimination, yet because of laws put in place to actually protect against genuine discrimination, this situation has occurred.

Now, one can presume there is more to the story, certainly wouldn't surprise me - I have very little time for Christians with such dated and in my opinion, wrong beliefs, so it could well be that what happened was totally justified. But based on what little we know, I personally just feel what happened is not right - and frankly it pains me to be siding with people who still have the views those Christians had.

So you'd be perfectly happy with my example above with a bakery refusing to bake a cake with a picture of 2 black people on because they found black people offensive?

The only reason we have these laws to protect people is because of people kicking up a fuss

 

[StriderX]

(Source).

Quasi-political, unfortunately for the bakers, enough to defeat them i guess.

 

[Sankari]

Quasi-political, unfortunately for the bakers, enough to defeat them i guess.

It strikes me as a deliberate political stunt.

 

[thep02]

Quasi-political, unfortunately for the bakers, enough to defeat them i guess.

Having looked at the source you quoted it looks like some other local baker who wasn't a bigot made the couple a cake and loads of local people celebrated, yet again bigots thinking they think like the "silent majority" being proven wrong.

 

[StriderX]

It strikes me as a deliberate political stunt.

The inclusion of an organisation was perhaps against the defendants, but i think overall its not "massively political".

Perhaps in Nor.Ire., it might be since that place is filled with things i disagree with, but frankly i think a lawyer would propose that the cake was less political and more a personal statement by the defendants, thus the judge seemingly could not disagree with the assessment.

But i dunno, im not a witness to this "heinous" of crimes.

 

[SGCWill]

It's not discriminatory to cut a gay, it's only discriminatory to cut a gay if you're cutting them for being gay.

The bakers in this case didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay - they refused to make gay slogans on their cake and court ruled that discriminatory.

I think this ruling is truly awful.

Certainly, I can see that to deny someone a service or goods or job because of their sexual orientation or religion is wrong - But, on the other hand, should I be forced to support something which is against my beliefs?

What if I go into an Israeli cuisine restaurant and ask for a nice pork chop and they say "No we do not serve this due to our religious belief!"?? The president set by this ruling says that I can take them to court - They've discriminated against my right to eat what I want using their religion as justification!

 

[spoffle]

The bakers in this case didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay - they refused to make gay slogans on their cake and court ruled that discriminatory.

I think this ruling is truly awful.

Certainly, I can see that to deny someone a service or goods or job because of their sexual orientation or religion is wrong - But, on the other hand, should I be forced to support something which is against my beliefs?

What if I go into an Israeli cuisine restaurant and ask for a nice pork chop and they say "No we do not serve this due to our religious belief!"?? The president set by this ruling says that I can take them to court - They've discriminated against my right to eat what I want using their religion as justification!

Apparently, at least. We unfortunately don't know what was actually said for certain.

 

[D.P.]

The bakers in this case didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay - they refused to make gay slogans on their cake and court ruled that discriminatory.

I think this ruling is truly awful.

Certainly, I can see that to deny someone a service or goods or job because of their sexual orientation or religion is wrong - But, on the other hand, should I be forced to support something which is against my beliefs?

What if I go into an Israeli cuisine restaurant and ask for a nice pork chop and they say "No we do not serve this due to our religious belief!"?? The president set by this ruling says that I can take them to court - They've discriminated against my right to eat what I want using their religion as justification!

If pork chops were on the menu then you night have a point but otherwise it is a meaningless comparison. You can't go into PC world and as for a big Mac.

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

There is no discussion here. They are homophobic idiots that broke the law.

 

[cheesyboy]

The bakers in this case didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay - they refused to make gay slogans on their cake and court ruled that discriminatory.

I think this ruling is truly awful.

Certainly, I can see that to deny someone a service or goods or job because of their sexual orientation or religion is wrong - But, on the other hand, should I be forced to support something which is against my beliefs?

What if I go into an Israeli cuisine restaurant and ask for a nice pork chop and they say "No we do not serve this due to our religious belief!"?? The president set by this ruling says that I can take them to court - They've discriminated against my right to eat what I want using their religion as justification!

There's no recognised human right which would be impinged by not being able to order pork.

There have been lots of similes presented in this thread, attempting to illustrate why this ruling is onerous, but none have actually managed to come up with anything which is actually comparable.

The bakery, a limited company not an individual, had a discriminatory practice whereby it wouldn't produce a gay cake - the directors, the agents of the company, said it was a point of principle and that gay cakes ran contrary to religious dogma.

Individuals are welcome to their beliefs, but are not welcome to restrict others' choices under those beliefs.

 

[SGCWill]

Apparently, at least. We unfortunately don't know what was actually said for certain.

My mum and a lot of her friends are gay or bisexual and Ashers (whose employees who know them) have never refused to serve them...

That's only 3 branches of their business though and their employees are people and not just copy and paste machines..

 

[batsy]

Full judgement of the case for anyone interested.

http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases and Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf

Not sure what to make of the whole thing tbh, although I don't envy people who have to navigate modern life with a head full of magic and superstition. Maybe they should have just said they were too busy to take the order.

 

[spoffle]

If porch chops were on the menu then you night have a point but otherwise it is a meaningless comparison. You can't go I to PC world and as for a big Mac.

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

There is no discussion here. They are homophobic idiots that brole the law.

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

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.

 

[spoffle]

My mum and a lot of her friends are gay or bisexual and Ashers (whose employees who know them) have never refused to serve them...

That's only 3 branches of their business though and their employees are people and not just copy and paste machines..

Sure, I'm just highlighting that it's still a case of second hand info that none of us are in any position to actually verify with certainty.

 

[Dis86]

So you'd be perfectly happy with my example above with a bakery refusing to bake a cake with a picture of 2 black people on because they found black people offensive?

The only reason we have these laws to protect people is because of people kicking up a fuss

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

 

[Doogles]

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.

 

[estebanrey]

The bakers in this case didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay - they refused to make gay slogans on their cake and court ruled that discriminatory.

I think this ruling is truly awful.

Certainly, I can see that to deny someone a service or goods or job because of their sexual orientation or religion is wrong - But, on the other hand, should I be forced to support something which is against my beliefs?

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.

What if I go into an Israeli cuisine restaurant and ask for a nice pork chop and they say "No we do not serve this due to our religious belief!"?? The president set by this ruling says that I can take them to court - They've discriminated against my right to eat what I want using their religion as justification!

It's "precedent", but I digress. This is a silly example as you are asking a restaurant to supply you with something they don't stock. Ashers stock cakes and offer a custom design service so they weren't being asked to fulfil something they were unable to.

 

[spoffle]

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.

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

 

[SGCWill]

There's no recognised human right which would be impinged by not being able to order pork.

There is no recognized human right for cake either!

This could have easily been solved if the storeperson just removed the ashers logo from the cake instead of telling the purchaser to get lost...

I guess you are right, I just wish the news articles were more clear. From where I sit, it seems like you have to do what you are told, even if it is against your beliefs.