Gay cake row.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

In short: A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.

What do we think of this?

On these grounds, could you go sue a halal butchers for not selling pork on religious grounds?

 

IMO there's a subtle but important difference between determining who to sell to based on their gender/sexuality/race (which I'm absolutely against), and refusing to provide a product you disagree with (which I'd defend your right to do). As you say, I wouldn't expect to go to a Halal butchers and take them to court for not selling me pork, so irrespective of whether I agree with the bakery's beliefs or not, I'm not sure I agree with the ruling.

 

The Halal butcher comparison is the first one that popped into my head I have to say.

The guy clearly did this to mix things up, the fact he was a gay rights activist is just the icing on the cake.

 

After I saw the title of this thread I was half expecting Fan to come on here to check whether someone had been making "fairy cakes".

Fortunately, there was no mention of the "f" word in the article.

 

obviously not. if they refused to sell you halal food because you were gay though...

 

i would suggest thinking about me less, but who am i kidding? what would you do all day?

 

The Bakery didn't refuse to sell them a cake because they were Gay, they refused to sell them the cake based on what they had asked to be written on it. I'd be fairly certain that they'd have also refused a straight person asking for a cake with the same message, therefore I don't really see how it can be construed as discrimination. Same rule applied equally. Surely?

 

in truth i can see both sides. it looks like a morally dense issue with legitimate grievances and defences on both sides, so i didn't think it did the subject justice do reduce it to a comparison, which on the surface, seemed to be somewhat vacuous. because they weren't taken to court for refusing to provide a serive they don't sell. they were taken to court for refusing to provide a service they do provide.

beyond that, shades of grey and nuance and all that.

 

It's discrimination. It's a bakery that does wedding cakes. They were asked to do a wedding cake and refused on grounds of sexuality, refused a service they would have offered a straight couple.

Had they asked for a Halal meat pie they could reasonably refuse because they didn't advertise as a bakery meeting that requirement either. .

Whether or not more civil behaviour on either side might have prevented it from getting to court is another matter.

 

What had they asked to be written on it? 'Slogan' is not an objective term.

 

I'm not sure why Bert & Ernie are involved in this.

 

Crikey - they should have refused on the grounds of difficulty.

 

so gay

 

At first glance, from a rights perspective, I had a bit of sympathy for the baker.

But taking a step back, I think most in this country, whilst thinking the man has the right to write on his cakes what he wants, would think that the baker is being petty.

And I would rather protect gay rights than rights of a man who refuses to do his job and put some writing on a silly cake, because he has decided to interpret the bible in a way that certainly is contradictory to loving your neighbour, your enemy etc.

Is he really that closed minded that he wouldn't just write something on a cake for a gay couple? What a dinosaur.

 

Muslim bakeries don't want to make your gay wedding cake either. Where are the RIGHT ON lefties on this?

 

I agree that I have a personal distaste for the baker's bigotry, however, I wonder how far we go before freedom of thought and expression is infringed.

My instinct is that if a baker wants to be bigoted, he can be. The rub would be, that gay activists could make it widely known what a narrow minded little homophobe he is and so damage his business.

It's a privately owned business, as far as I'm aware and as much as I disagree with the baker's views, I think it's dangerous for us to start telling people how they should think and behave.

disclaimer - I am in no way sticking up for the baker or for his views, but I think that freedom of thought, speech and expression are sacrosanct and if we start only allowing it for things we agree with, then we're on a sticky wicket.

In conclusion, I'd happily ice a cake for a couple of nuptual pouves, but I wouldn't offer any satisfaction guarantees on the result.

 

Wouldn't the Bert and Ernie pic infringe copyright anyway?

 

So the judge ruled that they discriminated against the couple based on the fact they were gay. They claimed they didn't know they were gay and that it was the message on the cake they disagreed with. The judge ruled that they did know. How can anyone think it had nothing to do with whether the couple were gay or not when the whole ruling in the case was that they discriminated against them because they were gay, not because of the message.

 

Unless you've got them under tight surveillance whilst cooking it, what sort of absolute farkwit demands that somebody who he's offended prepares food for him anyway?

 

Don't flatter yourself.:doh:

 

Yea asking for trouble! It's a bit like they say - you should never upset a chef or waiter in a restaurant before the food arrives.

 

Depending on the referendum, norn irn could be the last place in the British isles without gay marriage. Which I guess is a mark of progress, but still seems kind of silly, now in 2015 people could still be against it

 

Almost. Gay marriage is illegal in one small place where birching is still used as a form of punishment. I've no info as to the effectiveness of this deterrent re gay marriage.

 

Still not sure on this.

It's his shop, he can do what he wants, go to another baker?

If I wanted Free Palestine printed on a cake and the baker refused to serve me because he's Jewish would I have a case?

 

If he refused to serve you based on the cake design then no. If he refused to serve you based on your religion then yes. In this cake incident what has happened is the judge ruled that the owner discriminated against the couple on the basis that they were gay, not on the cake design.

 

He's refused to serve the one man based on what was said on the cake, if he was gay and wanted a Watford FC cake made I don't think it would've been a problem.

 

No, that is exactly the point. The judge ruled that it wasn't the content of the cake but the fact that the owner believed they were gay as to the reason why he refused to make the cake for them.

 

You don't think the cake maker would have has a problem with a Watford fc cake, which is fair enough.

If a judge in Belfast has come down on the side of the gay guy though, then perhaps the cake-maker isn't as cool as you seem to think he is?

 

Only Henry Kissinger can sort that one out & he's dead.

 

It only happened to a gay rights activist because he went out of his way to make it happen. Such is the world we live in now.

 

This ruling seems correct to me. You can have whatever beliefs you want, but as soon as you offer a service to the public then you must abide by the laws on discrimination. Doesn't this case have precedent anyway a few years back when some devout Christians refused to let a gay couple stay in their hotel? The ruling was the same in that one I think.