[Closed] same sex marridge cake

They should not be allowed to refuse that service based on someone's sexuality, religion or ethnicity.

Do you think it would be okay for a golf club to refuse to accept black people as members?

they refuse females as members

Religion. Still poisoning everything. 🙄

As far as I can see he's not refused to serve the person he's refused to make a design that he disagrees with. It'd be discrimination if he refused to bake the person a cake full stop or would make the design for a straight customer.
It looks like in this case you've of the whole bell as there's 2 bell ends though.

They should not be allowed to refuse that service based on someone's sexuality, religion or ethnicity.

They didn't. The refused to make a cake for a cause they don't believe in. A straight person could of asked for the same cake and they would of had the same result.

they refuse females as members

And if someone challenged that then I'd support them too.

Some people don't like homosexuals, you mean the thought of homosexuality? Right? I mean how would you tell otherwise?

[i]What about the bakers rights, should they be forced to do something against there beliefs to conform to society.

Yes.[/i]

How boring would that've been? Cake made. No news. No thread. Nothing. 🙁

some people don't like homosexuals... What I don't understand is why a lot of people seem to think it's OK to tell them what they should and shouldn't like.

What homophobes choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, but I don't want my kids seeing it.

They should not be allowed to refuse that service based on someone's sexuality, religion or ethnicity.

What homophobes choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, but I don't want my kids seeing it.

😆

Uch, the 'labels' are so tiring. I cannot wait for the day then we don't have to have a big ****-off label slapped on our foreheads. I'm almost feel that all the 'gay rights/pride' stuff encourages the labeling even further.

/end of pointless rant.

So the Halal butcher should sell me bacon if I asked him, or should I go to another butcher?

If he sells bacon to other people, then yes he should sell it to you.

I assume what they object to is baking a cake that promotes homosexuality, not baking a cake for a homosexual?

Are people still allowed to hold the view that homosexuality is wrong? If so, are they then entitled to decline to make something that promotes a view that opposes theirs?

Would it be unlawful or wrong for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake with the Christian Institute logo on it for a Christian Institute party, ordered by a heterosexual customer, because it promoted something they didn't agree with?

So the Halal butcher should sell me bacon if I asked him, or should I go to another butcher?

The butcher should sell you something they don't stock? Not quite the same as a cake shop refusing to sell a cake, is it?

But the halal butcher doesn't serve bacon, if you were guy and he sold bacon to other customers but not you then that's discrimination. Going into a halal butchers and ordering bacon is harassment, similar to going into a Christian bakery and ordering a design that offends their beliefs. Good grief I can't believe I'm defending the god botherers.

He did them a favour. I wish my baker would stop selling me delicious cakes and biscuits. The bastard.

GrahamS - Member
So the Halal butcher should sell me bacon if I asked him, or should I go to another butcher?
If he sells bacon to other people, then yes he should sell it to you.

So in this instance the baker is in the right as he would have refused a homosexually themed cake to anyone? 😕

Having read through all the above I'm can't figure out who's arguing what any more.

EDIT: I have no view of my own as it's bound to be wrong!

Going into a halal butchers and ordering bacon is harassment, similar to going into a Christian bakery and ordering a design that [s]offends their beliefs[/s] contradicts the bits of the bible they've cherry-picked to support their prejudices.

?

ransos - Member
So the Halal butcher should sell me bacon if I asked him, or should I go to another butcher?
The butcher should sell you something they don't stock? Not quite the same as a cake shop refusing to sell a cake, is it?

Depends, bacon is a type of meat and a Halal butcher sells meat. (A massive over simplification of your cake categorising analogy)

I walked into a butchers in town who (unbeknownst to me only specialised in pork products), I asked if he had any whole chickens or joints of beef - needless to say I didn't get what I was after.

The butcher should sell you something they don't stock? Not quite the same as a cake shop refusing to sell a cake, is it?

Going into a halal butchers and ordering bacon is harassment, similar to going into a Christian bakery and ordering a design that offends their beliefs.

Hmm.. that's a fair point. 😕

I don't think either qualifies as harassment though, unless they do it repeatedly.

And the cake situation was done to highlight possibly illegal discrimination, not just piss off the shop owners.

Are people still allowed to hold the view that homosexuality is wrong? If so, are they then entitled to decline to make something that promotes a view that opposes theirs?

Imagine that the bakers were racists who were opposed to anti-racism campaigns, and they'd refused to make a cake that was commissioned for 'Show Racism the Red Card', on the grounds of not wanting racial harmony and thinking that black people were a bit ewww.

They're allowed to hold those views, they'll just get into trouble if they start actively discriminating because of those views.

Give us a few more days and we'll have better stories making the headlines 😆

The butcher should sell you something they don't stock? Not quite the same as a cake shop refusing to sell a cake, is it?

But they didn't refuse to sell them a cake - they refused to make them a cake with the name of a campaign group on it. That really isn't the same thing.

It's illegal to discriminate against a person for their sexuality, gender or race but I don't think the same goes for 'discriminating' against a campaign group.

I'm sure I would be (rightly) in trouble for not employing someone because of their religious beliefs but I would I really get into trouble for refusing to do work for Concern (Christian rights group)?

The bakers weren't refusing to bake a cake for a gay person, were they? They were refusing to decorate a cake in a manner that goes against their beliefs...
If the gay bloke had gone into the bakers asking for a cake that said "Happy Diwali" or "Good Luck Bob" there wouldn't have been an issue.

Does the baker really have to accept the job?

It would be a lot better if bigoted business people had some sort of directory they could advertise in that we could all see. Then if I wanted a cake made I could see the above bakery was a bigot and then never buy their goods.

Give it ten years and this will all have blown over and 99% of people will wonder what in the hell it was all about.

I do get confused, however. The god squad brigade *really* have several nests of bees in their bonnet about gay folk to the apparent exclusion of all other things in their book.

But they didn't refuse to sell them a cake - they refused to make them a cake with the name of a campaign group on it. That really isn't the same thing.

The bakers weren't refusing to bake a cake for a gay person, were they? They were refusing to decorate a cake in a manner that goes against their beliefs...

No: the bakers said "It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches"

Maybe, but it made headlines and got all of us talking about it - so I'd say job done really.

I believe the opposite, just looking at this thread there are in my view far more people seeing or having sympathy the baker's point of view than there were on say the Church vs gay marriage threads. This illustrates how artificial constructs can be counterproductive.

After all, Rosa Parks did not get on that bus with the intention to protest, but when asked to move, she refused because she had had enough - it was a spontaneous act of defiance and all the more powerful as a result.

ransoms - I'm not seeing how what they said contradicts the two posts you quoted?

And bear in mind, they've said it's time to "make a stand". (Fully backed up by the Christian Institute who will no doubt fund their legal costs should it go to court...they like spending their money fighting against LGBT rights, and getting siblings added to the list of people who should be allowed have civil partnerships. 🙄 )

They're allowed to hold those views, they'll just get into trouble if they start actively discriminating because of those views.

So would it be ok it be ok for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake with the Christian Institute logo on it for a Christian Institute party?

No: the bakers said "It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches"

I do agree, rereading, that that it could be construed that way - i.e. its a cake for a gay wedding so we turned it down because of that. However, I think there is plenty of wriggle room for the baker that his comments refer specifically to campaign agenda of the group the logo of which the couple wanted on the cake.

Which every way you cut it (pun intended) you do wonder how deliberately the baker was targeted and how deliberately inflammatory the cake design was. If it had been a far more anonymous cake I wonder if the baker would have had any issue.

Who puts the logo of a campaign group on their wedding cake ffs! It would be like me having the greenpeace logo on my birthday cake!

ransoms - I'm not seeing how what they said contradicts the two posts you quoted?

Their justification appears to be a literal interpretation of the bible. Given that the bible (to be the best of my knowledge) has nothing to say about Sesame street or Queerspace, then their refusal can only be the bible's condemnation of sodomy.

If they had any guts, they should at least be consistent and refuse commissions for farmers, bankers and menstruating women.

Which every way you cut it (pun intended) you do wonder how deliberately the baker was targeted and how deliberately inflammatory the cake design was.

They may well have been. Good.

Ok, I see what you're getting at now. Perhaps a separate issue though (an interesting one mind).

ransos - Member

No: the bakers said "It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches"

That's what I said- their beliefs didn't prevent them from baking the cake; they chose to discriminate against gay people based on their beliefs. But there's nothing in the bible that prevented them from baking the cake.

Who puts the logo of a campaign group on their wedding cake ffs!

It's not a wedding cake.

It was a cake requested by a gay rights activist, specifically to start this debate and legal challenge.

Do we know if any of the bakers were clean shaven?

I agree with many on here, in that I strongly disagree with the baker's views, but I do think that they should not be forced to make things that contradict their beliefs. There is a big difference (in my mind, and probably in law) between saying "I will not sell you this here cake, because you are gay and I don't like gay people", and saying "We don't make / sell cakes like that". I think it's pretty much certain that if a straight person asked for the same design then they too would have been refused.

If I were a baker and someone asked me to bake a cake that said "gay people are really rubbish", then I would decline. In doing so, I wouldn't be discriminating against gay-haters, so much as saying "these are my hands, and just because I sell cakes, that doesn't mean that you can force me to do whatever you like with my hands". Clearly the historical context is different so it's not a perfect analogy, but still. In a similar vein, if you went to that baker and said "I am a Jew. Please make me a cake that says 'Judaism is best, and Jesus was not the son of God'.", would you really think that the baker would be anti-Semitic if he declined?

The only real difference (to my mind) is that the baker's anti-homosexuality beliefs are at odds with mine. I think he's 100% definitely blindingly obviously wrong to think that being gay is wrong. But I do still think that he's allowed to *think* that.

Oh and on the subject of clubs discriminating against women etc., hopefully the very idea of having to force them to be inclusive will be daft before too long. What *should* be done is that the right-minded majority would shun anywhere that was discriminating like that, so they'd disappear. In much the same way as I'm fairly sure (naively hope..) that any golf club which put forward a "no black people" policy would be forced to change its stance by its members refusing to remain.

this does all remind me a bit of when Obama was elected (stay with me on this one..) they asked a black woman if she thought things had changed/progress had been made as they had elected a black president.
Her Reply - It will be when you don't feel the need to ask the question.

Basically when we stop putting labels on people and just accept people have the same rights to be who they are then the world will be better.

[i]I think he's 100% definitely blindingly obviously wrong to think that being gay is wrong[/i]

He might not think that. He might even be gay. But his beliefs say gay marriage is wrong.

Have you seen the page has changed now?
[i]The cake was ordered for an International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia event, hosted by Alliance councillor Andrew Muir, [b]who said another bakery accepted the order[/i][/b]

Move along!
😆

There is a big difference (in my mind, and probably in law) between saying "I will not sell you this here cake, because you are gay and I don't like gay people", and saying "We don't make / sell cakes like that". I think it's pretty much certain that if a straight person asked for the same design then they too would have been refused.

I'm not sure - for the reasons you state - that what they did was illegal, but I'm pleased that they've been outed as bigots. Perhaps if their trade suffers as a result, they will know what it feels like to be discriminated against.

It's not a wedding cake.

It was a cake requested by a gay rights activist, specifically to start this debate and legal challenge.

I'm clearly having a hard of reading day!

It would be interesting to know how the refusal was worded. If he had any sense he would have agreed to make the cake, but refused to put the specific graphics on it. I can't believe I find myself defended the rights of someone to hold a view I don't agree with because of religious views which I abhor!

Oh and on the subject of clubs discriminating against women etc., hopefully the very idea of having to force them to be inclusive will be daft before too long.

True, but that's [i]slightly[/i] more nuanced given that we also have things like women's only nights at gyms and swimming pools and women-only groups like Breeze cycling.

There's a photo of a man clearly sticking a knife into Bert's (or Ernie's) face on the BBC page. I'm outraged.

gray - Member

In a similar vein, if you went to that baker and said "I am a Jew. Please make me a cake that says 'Judaism is best, and Jesus was not the son of God'.", would you really think that the baker would be anti-Semitic if he declined?

Terrible analogy. It's like a jew asked them to bake a cake with a start of david and the word "Jews" on it and he refused because he doesn't like jews.

Surely we don't have legislation that compels people to participate in the promotion of something they think is wrong?

given that we also have things like women's only nights at gyms and swimming pools and women-only groups like Breeze cycling.

In a similar vein, if you went to that baker and said "I am a Jew. Please make me a cake that says 'Judaism is best, and Jesus was not the son of God'.", would you really think that the baker would be anti-Semitic if he declined?

Terrible analogy. It's like a jew asked them to bake a cake with a start of david and the word "Jews" on it and he refused because he doesn't like jews.

I don't think the analogy is that bad - the key thing is that he was being asked to bake a cake that clearly promotes something which his belief system tells him is morally wrong.

I think that you've missed (or disagree with) the point that there is a big difference between refusing to do a particular job because one doesn't like the job, and refusing to do work for a person due to some daft discriminatory reason. I personally think that if a jew asked them to bake a cake with a start of david and the word "Jews" on it and he refused because he doesn't like jews, then it would be appropriate to say "you cannot refuse on the grounds that you don't like jews". However, if he refused on the grounds that he doesn't want to take part in the promotion of religions other than his own, then fair enough!

I feel so sorry for normal Christians. Most of them are Not Like That, but the only ones you ever hear about are the sort of hate-filled lunatics who think that Jesus told them not to bake homocakes.

😐

given that we also have things like women's only nights at gyms and swimming pools and women-only groups like Breeze cycling.

And girls joining scouts, women joining rotary but no boys joining guides or men joining the WI. A 'refuge' for girls/women still exists but not the other way around. Not convinced that a gender refuge isn't a bad thing sometimes.

Oh and on the subject of clubs discriminating against women etc., hopefully the very idea of having to force them to be inclusive will be daft before too long.

True, but that's slightly more nuanced given that we also have things like women's only nights at gyms and swimming pools and women-only groups like Breeze cycling.

Indeed. In practice though, I think there is generally a pretty obvious distinction between "special event to encourage people who otherwise feel excluded / daunted or something" as a positive thing to include people, and "we don't want your sort here" exclusions.

I've never tried homocake. I wonder what it tastes like? 😛
I'm homocake curious.

In practice though, I think there is generally a pretty obvious distinction...

Obvious maybe, but tricky to capture in law.
Golf clubs etc are allowed to be Men Only because these groups are allowed to Women Only.
I'm not sure either is inherently wrong, but the golf club one seems less fair some reason.

And the women's groups are not just about inclusion: Breeze North East organised a supported C2C ride that I quite wanted to go on, but I was excluded on the basis of my unsightly genitals.

gray - Member

I don't think the analogy is that bad - the key thing is that he was being asked to bake a cake that clearly promotes something which his belief system tells him is morally wrong.

The difference- "Jesus is not the son of god" is an attack on his faith. Just being Jewish isn't.

I don't think the analogy is that bad - the key thing is that he was being asked to bake a cake that clearly promotes something which his belief system tells him is morally wrong.

The difference- "Jesus is not the son of god" is an attack on his faith. Just being Jewish isn't.

But, if we accept that this baker's faith includes the notion that homosexuality is wrong, then saying "yay, go homosexuals" is still in direct opposition to his beliefs, isn't it? I accept that it's somewhat more antagonistic and attacky - you have a point there, but to my mind, the point would still stand if the proposed cake were to say "Being a Jew is brilliant!". If the baker were then to say "Well, you know what, being a Jew is to deny the existence of something fundamental to my belief system, so I choose not to be actively involved in promoting this idea by baking this cake", then I'd say "Ooh, touchy!", not "Burn the discriminator!".

I feel so sorry for normal Christians. Most of them are Not Like That, but the only ones you ever hear about are the sort of hate-filled lunatics who think that Jesus told them not to bake homocakes.

I feel so sorry for normal Homosexuals. most of them are perfectly happy to live their lives like every other member of society, without interference from or interfering with anyone else, but the only ones you ever hear about on the news are the sort of attention-fulled lunatics who think that they have to prove a point by outing people against their will, demanding that someone bakes them homocakes against their will, or walking around wearing bright pink tutu's and a big sign saying 'everyone look at me, I'm [b]so[/b] gay'

(and for what its worth, most of my gay friends [i]really[/i] hate them)

Oh look, an "it's ok, some of my friends are gay" post. 😆

Reminds me of "my racism hell".

Well, I've had a cock in my mouth if that makes you feel better Darcy - not afraid to admit it.

hows about yourself?

[i]wearing bright pink tutu's [/i]

Are you sure they're gay, that's not nearly fabulous enough...

This is scene gay vs normal gay all over again 🙄

for what its worth, most of my gay friends really hate them

I can see why they might. But as an outsider I'd say their hate is misdirected.

They want gayness to be a complete non-issue and just to lead "normal" lives (like others who posted about "labels" etc). So they hate gay rights campaigns that make a fuss because it highlights that this isn't the case (yet).

The thing is though, they only have the current level of social/political acceptability thanks to campaigns and people like that.

If they hate them and wish them away then would they also be prepared to wish away all the good work they have done and go back to homosexuality being a crime?

hows about yourself?

I'm not flexible enough. But one day!

I feel so sorry for normal Homosexuals. most of them are perfectly happy to live their lives like every other member of society, without interference from or interfering with anyone else,

Unless, of course, they want a wedding cake or not to be gay bashed or owt like that. Or even holding hands will end up with you in hospital, never mind a peck on the cheek.

but the only ones you ever hear about on the news are the sort of attention-fulled lunatics who think that they have to prove a point by outing people against their will

Rarely happens - the last I heard was in the 90s. People who are gay but gaybashing. And in my book they're fair game, as they are attacking others and being hypocrites.

demanding that someone bakes them homocakes against their will, or walking around wearing bright pink tutu's and a big sign saying 'everyone look at me, I'm so gay'

(By the way, I don't see owt here about lesbians. Or are they OK?)

Sorry, tutu is in the wash. My sign is in Welsh, is that OK?

Or, lets say, its the complete nutters that think that gay people should be hidden away, afraid, never going out, never asking for *gasp* equality as that would be just too much!

They are usually the right wing nutters that are ex-brigadiers who live in Tunbridge Wells wearing women's undies.

Imagine my surprise at having just opened this thread, at this page and reading the first post!

It's not a wedding cake. If he'd ordered a wedding cake for all we know the baker might have made it. It's a message cake ordered by one belling that another bell end refused to provide after one of their staff originally agreed to.

As far as the report goes there is no suggestion of aggressive anti gay or gay bashing, just a refusal to ice a message on a cake. I'm not denying its still a problem but it to get to a discussion on violence when it is a refusal to bake a cake seems mildly excessive.

Is the baker dumb? Absolutely. Do I agree with his views? Absolutely not. Is it discrimination? I'm not sure it is.

[Applauds AdamW]

🙂

Imagine my surprise at having just opened this thread, at this page and reading the first post!

Imagine the subsequent hilarity when the Mod's redaction makes your comment appear to relate to be about emsz.

Is it discrimination? If they refused to provide a service on the grounds of sexual orientation - then the answer is yes it is discrimination in the eyes of the law.

What if it had been, eg, for a marriage between partners of different races and the shop had refused to do it as they didn't agree with such. That would be racist, clearly.

As far as I understand it the protection under law is the same.

Interesting one this.

The crux, basically, is whether the baker refused to fulfil the order because of the customer or the design. I've read the article and watched the "official statement" and it's still not clear to me.

Lets move on from the "halal butchers" analogy for a start. It's a straw man at best, and that's being generous.

Say I worked for a tobacco company and wanted a cake making that read "hey kids, smoke fags!" Would the baker be within their rights to refuse on their own moral grounds? I'd expect so, no? Or if I was an Asian bloke wanting a cake reading "bomb the infidels!"

So what we've got here is a request for a cake which says, as we can see from the picture, "support gay marriage." Assuming this mirrors the original request (which it may not do), is the baker within their rights here to refuse to make that design?

The sound bite from the pubescent Manager says, "we thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs... [and] we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order." Then he talks about continuing to take a stance, in a fairly nonsensical manner.

Now. If they object to the "support gay marriage" slogan on their own ethical grounds, however misguided those may be, I guess I can kind of roll with that. In which case, the sensible course of action would have been to ring the customer, explain the issues they had with the design choice, and suggest / discuss alternative designs that perhaps would be acceptable to both parties.

As far as I can see from the limited information presented, that's not what happened. They just said "we can't take your order." Ie, we don't want to do business with [i]you.[/i] Which, obviously, is discrimination and thus an entirely different situation to a simple objection over a design. In which case, they deserve the book throwing at them.

Cougar - it is difficult to draw analogies. In your examples - tobacco companies and smoking are not protected by discrimination laws, so perfectly within rights to say no.

You second example would potentially seem to be incitement to violence - which is in itself can be illegal, so would be wise to refuse.

As you say if the say no because the customer is gay then it is illegal. I don't know if extends to producing cake that carries a message that supports something legal and protected by discrimination law. My instinct is yes it would be covered - [b]but I am not a lawyer[/b].

We can't take your order
We can't take an order from you
We can't take that order
?

Does the scope of the legislation extend to compelling people to participate in the promotion of something they think is wrong?

Intresting conversations above, but over hyped by all, its not like some bloke walked into a bakers and asked to dip his cock into the donut mix to make some ring donuts, or a baker was caught doing that.

Other cake shops are available.

Does the scope of the legislation extend to compelling people to participate in the promotion of something they think is wrong?

That is the crux - but as I said I am not a lawyer.

But the law says you cannot refuse a service to someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation (race, disability etc)and (reading the article)that is what the Equality Commission has found then guilty of.

Using right to religious beliefs is no defence or allowance - remember the case with the B&B owners?

Does the scope of the legislation extend to compelling people to participate in the promotion of something they think is wrong?

No, just to do their job they offer to all without prejudice.

But that's where it's unclear Adam, if I walked in and ordered that design as a married man with a family, would they make it for me. If they wouldn't (As I suspect is the case) then they aren't withholding a service, so it comes down to is do you have to actively promote something you disagree with.

That's just it - does it amount to prejudice? It would be wrong of them to take the stance, you're gay so we won't sell cakes to you. But I'm not sure declining to create a cake that promotes an organisation whose views they don't agree with is the same thing. Should a Muslim who sells T-shirts and will print them for you be compelled to print T-shirts with 'Jesus is Lord' or similar on them if a customer requests them?

But that's where it's unclear Adam, if I walked in and ordered that design as a married man with a family, would they make it for me. If they wouldn't (As I suspect is the case) then they aren't withholding a service, so it comes down to is do you have to actively promote something you disagree with.

They are not promoting anything. They are making a cake for a customer.

Perhaps they should put on their doors "We discriminate against anything gay regardless of who asks for it"?

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against

Well that's the gov link. I think this is one that will be settled in court - it is through court judgement that application of the law is determined anyway. If you are really interested all UK legislation and supporting policy notes are published online - but ultimately a judge will decide on scope.

A cake with a campaign groups logo for a civic event. Surely that's promoting that group to the public?