[Closed] same sex marridge cake

remember the case with the B&B owners?

One of the judges who decided that case recently said in an interview that she/he felt that on reflection that they had not given sufficient weight to the B&B owners religious convictions.

Ok So I did look up the legislation. The relevant explanatory note is :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/2/1

In the B and B case there was clear discrimination, a hetero couple would have been accorded that service the gay couple weren't.

Nah, thought about it again - and still think the baker is morally (not sure about legally - I'm no lawyer) in their rights to refuse the work - at this moment in history.

Why? Well, the context is that there has recently been a national debate about the change in the principle of what marriage constitutes (is it a state of affairs that only existing between a woman and a man, or can 2 people of the same sex also be married). There were two strongly polarised views. One side won. The same debate is happening across the globe and it is globally a far from universally accepted concept yet.

The baker has refused to carry out work for a campaign group whom he does not agree with - I see no discrimination against the individual here - just someone who (misguidedly) has a differing opinion as to what marriage constitutes to what has been recently adopted as the new norm in this country.

The question I asked myself was if this cake had been ordered 2 years ago when the organisation would have been campaigning for a change in the law would the baker have been in his rights to refuse to bake a cake for them? I would say yes he would in the same way another baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for the Greenpeace, the BNP or the Countryside Alliance if they fundamentally disagreed for the aims of the group. The fact that the individuals in the Queerspace organisation have a legal right not to be discriminated against is irrelevant.

Do I agree with the baker's stance - hell no! But I do respect their right to not to do work with regard to a campaign they don't agree with.

Cougar - it is difficult to draw analogies.

Very true. TBH I was really "showing my working" rather than trying to prove a point to anyone else particularly.

That is to say, my gut reaction was to think that it was a bunch of religious types being prejudiced against one of the few demographics they can still get away with persecuting, for now at least. By drawing analogies I was trying to look at the issue more impartially from both sides instead, and ended up partially changing my own mind in the process.

Anyway. Something else just occurred to me. This isn't just a case of refusing to serve them at a personal level; ie, he's not gone "I can't serve you due to personal beliefs, I'll ask someone else," they've made a company-wide policy decision not to serve them. They've six shops with 62 employees, and they've made a moral call on behalf of all their employees. I'm not wholly sure how comfortable I am with that.

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

They are not promoting it. The people who have paid for the cake are promoting it. Does the cake shop "promote" every person/event they bake for?

But as an aside: where does this end? "Sorry we have a sincerely held belief that X (blacks/asians/gays/dogs/carrots) are wrong so we're not going to serve you.". Simply going for a pint of milk will end up being a minefield. I'm still getting used to the fact I can actually book a holiday with my husband in Cornwall without being rejected or expecting pitchforks at my arrival. Try and put yourself in that situation to see how it feels.

If this company lives by their religious book they should put that on the doors so people can avoid or use, depending on their views. That would mean: nothing to do with divorce, second marriages, women teachers, and a *whole* lot of other stuff. As I said, Christians do seem to have an absolute hatred for gays these days.

And as for the Cornish couple with a B&B. Those that accepted non-married people (straight) bookings. Tough. It wasn't a bide-a-wee cottage, it was a pretty large business.

We have two conflicting rights - the right to have a cake made supporting your point of view, and the right to refuse as your point of view is opposed to it.

Common sense says that both sides should have just had their say and dropped it there and then. Setting up for a fight over it is just stupid and a waste of money. This isn't about harmful discrimination, refusing to serve a gay person, it's a political pissing up the wall stunt over a cake decoration ffs. If people can't get a sense of perspective on that we are all going to hell* in a hand cart.

If we are all to have equal rights - which I agree with - then we have to accept that other people have the right to disagree with us sometimes. Making a huge fuss over minor hiccoughs along the way makes all sides look stupid.

*other versions of purgatory are available 😉

Adam > This forum really needs a 'Like' button.

As I said, Christians do seem to have an absolute hatred for gays these days

He just couldnt just see it a a flag, but saw it as the downfall of the city of chester and shameful.

Has he never watched Hollyoaks? 😆

They are not promoting it. The people who have paid for the cake are promoting it. Does the cake shop "promote" every person/event they bake for?

The cake is promotional, whoever bakes it has participated in that (or facilitated it), which is how I phrased my question.

They aren't refusing point blank to serve them anything simply because they're gay, they are refusing to bake a very specific cake. That's not the same. If they refused to allow any gay folk in their shop then of course bollocks to them.

What do you think about a Muslim T-shirt printer refusing to print a T-shirt with a slogan like 'Allah isn't real' on it if a customer of another religion asked for such a thing?

What do you think about a Muslim T-shirt printer refusing to print a T-shirt with a slogan like 'Allah isn't real' on it if a customer of another religion asked for such a thing?

Can you think of a non-religious example of the same situation?

Ie, if we remove "special religious privilege" from the argument does it still stand up? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

Is it like going into a BMX shop and ordering a 29er?

I am strictly pro gay, the reason being freedom of choice, I think people should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their soft bits, and romantic desires. So I find this very sad, because if the refuser is using his right to be free to choose to do whatever he wanted, (and wishes to confer that right on others), and if he was a true christian, then he would tolerate the right of others to do whatever they wanted over his own right. So his actions are not so much christian, as arsehole.

To me the freedom to do what you want, should not include the freedom to stop others doing what they want. The act of not making the cake is not about allowing the "christian" baker to do what he wants, it is about him stopping others from doing what they want, and is anti freedom of choice.

What do you think about a Muslim T-shirt printer refusing to print a T-shirt with a slogan like 'Allah isn't real' on it if a customer of another religion asked for such a thing?

A better juxtaposed example would be Mr McArthur (our baker) walking into a banner makers owned by Mr Boyd (Rainbow Project fella) and asking for Leviticus 18:12 ("you shall not lie with a man as a woman that is an abomination") to be printed on a banner to be towed around the skies. Should the banner maker be able to refuse the order or should Mr McArthur feel he has been religiously discriminated against?

I'm not sure Cougar - race, religion and sexuality are the 3 that are legislated for, so perhaps closer examples in the context of debating the legality of what's happened here?

EDIT - that's not correct - gender, age and being pregnant are too. Whoops.

To me the freedom to do what you want, should not include the freedom to stop others doing what they want. The act of not making the cake is not about allowing the "christian" baker to do what he wants, it is about him stopping others from doing what they want, and is anti freedom of choice.

Is that logical?

I don't want to paint my neighbours house, but I'm not going to try and stop anyone else doing it. I'm not trying to stop her having it painted, I just don't want to be the one that paints it.

If the baker tried to stop all the other bakers making this cake, in order to prevent the customer having one at all, he would be wrong, but there's no evidence to suggest that.

If you were a professional house painter, then it is logical and you are wrong to refuse her. He also stopped his employees from doing so, despite their own freedom. Fits the arsehole description nicely I think.

If the baker tried to stop all the other bakers making this cake,

Well, he stopped 62 of them from doing so.

I'm not sure Cougar - race, religion and sexuality are the 3 that are legislated for, so perhaps closer examples in the context of debating the legality of what's happened here?

Yeah. Tricky, isn't it.

one of my freinds got relly upset at the rainbow flag being flown outside the local council offices and he is a catholic.

He just couldnt just see it a a flag, but saw it as the downfall of the city of chester and shameful.

He really shouldn't go to San Francisco. Ever.

I'm in two minds about all this now.

I think a salient question is "Would it also be discrimination if the baker refused to make a cake [i]against[/i] gay marriage?"

I think challenging discrimination and prejudice is a good thing. And I think they've done that pretty well. Certainly got headlines and all of us talking.

In terms of a legal challenge, I suspect they might lose, but it'll certainly be an interesting case and seems to ask relevant questions about balancing rights.

Very tricky. I'm not sure this falls foul of the law, but it will be interesting to see.

I'd imagined the scenario as something like the Saturday girl taking the order then the boss saying no thanks, but apparently not going by your and toys posts.

Yeah. Tricky, isn't it.

And it's only the religious ones that are nonsensical!

But as an aside: where does this end?

It ends pretty quickly because it only going to apply to people who are protected under the Equality Act, so it is only an issue when there are two groups of people who have such protection, which on the whole will be reasonably rare.

The balance of competing rights is always difficult. I discussed something similar with an academic expert on human rights, her explanation was that all rights have to be held relative and not absolute - and it is the judgement of that balance that defines a society.

I am always going to be sympathetic to gay equality in these questions - but that is a reflection of my beliefs.

Very succinct explanation.

The point is, it is all very well saying that the bakers think that gay marriage is morally wrong, but as a society we have decided that being gay isn't wrong. As a result what they are doing is discriminatory and has been made illegal. They can hold to whatever opinions they like, but they are not entitled to act in this way. In the same way, there are some people who see mixed race marriages as being morally wrong. It isn't illegal to think that, but it is illegal to act upon it if you are a business supplying a service to the public.

Unfortunately the moment that legal loopholes are allowed for religious discrimination then floodgates are opened. After the Obama 'Affordable Care' act had a hole put in it for religious businesses not to allow cover for contraceptives, others have started to demand exemption from LGBT anti-discrimination laws. [url= http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ ]link[/url]

I note they don't ask for the ability to discriminate against divorcees or female teachers.

My personal view is that shops who don't want your trade should have a colour coded scheme outside so you can work out who you want to do business with or who will do business with you. This has started to happen in the states where Mississippi has put an anti-gay law into place but gay friendly local businesses have stickers in their windows that says "We don't discriminate: if you're buying, we're selling" - [url= http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/06/us-mississippi-law-legalising-anti-gay-discrimination-now-in-effect/ ]link[/url]. Some of the discriminating businesses are [url= http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/28/afa-shops-who-display-we-dont-discriminate-stickers-are-bullying-christians/ ]not happy about these stickers[/url] saying that they are 'bullying christians'. Aww diddums.

This is going to be a mess for a few years before everyone realises that discrimination is basically stupid.

AdamW - I understand your point about stickers, but that is only necessary where anti-discrimination legislation is not strong enough. I am much happier with people required not to discrminate than being able to opt out, that suggests their views somehow reflects a wider acceptance in society.

Fundamentally, as above, once this is legislated upon and the balance determined through the courts, the bigots can obey the law and provide the service or find a new job.

... or plead special dispensation.

[img] [/img]

The baker's discrimination is based on the Bible, Leviticus 18 and 20:13.

I don't believe it's possible to fairly apply anti-discrimination laws in this case as ruling in favour of one group inevitably discriminates against the other.

Only if you are comparing, for example, ruling between brown people and racists. Is it still a bad thing to discriminate against racists?

The law is really clear. You cannot pick and choose which sides of the law apply to you.

"If you are a company that is trading out there in the market place and someone comes to you, you can't pick and choose whether or not to fulfil that order based on their sexual orientation," Mr Boyd added.

From the bbc linky

The baker's discrimination is based on the Bible, Leviticus 18 and 20:13.

So on that basis can he also refuse to serve "unclean" menstruating women, keep slaves and burn people to death for being unchaste?

Because those are all in Leviticus too but we are generally happy for the law to overrule them.

Putting that another way,

You don't choose to be brown, white, disabled, gay, female, French.

You do choose to be Christian, vegetarian, homophobic, a Man United supporter.

Can we see any differences between these groups? Anyone? Bueller?

you can challenge views, debate ideas, question beliefs. But you cannot choose to treat people differently (for better or for worse) based on [i]what they are.[/i]

The baker's discrimination is based on the Bible, Leviticus 18 and 20:13.

Wow. I don't think he lives by Leviticus. He'd be mad to - daughters into slavery? Wearing mixed fabrics? Eating shellfish? And a whole lot more.

Still, if necessary the court (or indeed business, if it dries up for him) will decide.

Well if those being racist, misogynistic, homophobic, sexist etc. are Jews, Christians, Muslims and doing it in the name of their religion then you have to discriminate against their religious group to stop them.

However, I can't see a legislator ordering the destruction of every Bible because it incites hatred of minority groups.

you can challenge views, debate ideas, question beliefs. But you cannot choose to treat people differently (for better or for worse) based on what they are.

That's the tricky bit though: did the bakery treat them differently or would they have refused exactly the same order from a straight person?

Putting that another way,

You don't choose to be brown, white, disabled, gay, female, French.

You do choose to be Christian, vegetarian, homophobic, a Man United supporter.

Point of order, however my understanding is that the scientific jury is still very much out on the levels of biological determination or conscious choice involved in human sexuality - many eminent people would disagree strongly with lumping it in with race or disability,

As I understand it there may be a genetic component to normal gays but not scene gays 😀

(Does it make any difference if it is genetic? I don't think, for instance, that it's okay to discriminate against disabled people that were born disabled but not those who became disabled in later life, or vice versa)

So what you are saying is that people consciously choose to be gay? Which is why, throughout history, despite the stigma , persecution and repression, certain people seem to think, 'hey same sex relationships, that sounds fun'....

the scientific jury is still very much out

Good, I'm glad they don't have to hide their sexuality any more.

In seriousness; the "scientific jury" (whoever the chuff that is) can be as out as they like. Gay, straight, bi, something else: you don't choose who you fancy, you don't choose what pushes your buttons. You don't go to work one day and think "you know, I think I'll start fancying Claire in Accounts." You don't choose to prefer blondes, or Thai girls, or willy. You just do, it's part of who you are.

Whether they've isolated the 'gay gene' or not yet is neither here nor there. Ask yourself this; could you choose to be gay? Think you could give it a go for a bit?

Which is why, throughout history, despite the stigma , persecution and repression, certain people seem to think, 'hey same sex relationships, that sounds fun'....

Bit like Christians then...? 😉

Think you could give it a go for a bit?

I believe ninfan suggested he had tried the salami earlier, but it go deleted by one of those nasty mod types 🙂

But theres a clear element of homophobia in that argument – The whole “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a form of psychiatric illness. The implication that gay people would be straight, if only they could!

Cynthia Nixon spoke out about this whole thing a while ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

[i]“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.” Her face was red and her arms were waving. “As you can tell,” she said, “I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”[/i]

I believe ninfan suggested he had tried the salami earlier, but it go deleted by one of those nasty mod types

It hasn't been deleted.

The 'gene' question is irrelevant, a red herring even? Surely adults are free agents in their personal affairs - free to love, shag, marry, date or leave whomever they choose, and for their own reasons? We all fall somewhere along a spectrum of sexual orientation including gender identity and sexual preference. For example, many people are bisexual, they often get discriminated against by both homosexuals and heterosexuals!

Does it matter why people are gay? I think not. There's no objective reason to discriminate against gays whatever the reason they are gay. It takes an illogical reason such as religious dogma. But are we prepared to discriminate against the religious dogma that results in the discrimination.

Surely adults are be free to love, shag, marry, date or leave whomever they choose, and for their own reasons?

Agree completely

Thing is, they should also be free to believe in magical sky fairies and old fiction books, and have those beliefs respected as well.

But are we prepared to discriminate against the religious dogma that results in the discrimination.

Yes. As said earlier, we already "discriminate" by telling them they can't keep slaves or burn people to death, regardless of what the Good Book says.

"Going into a halal butchers and ordering bacon is harassment,"

Ahahahahhahahahahhahahagahaggagaga. Ahagagahah. Hahahahahga. Oh, dear me. Ha ha ha. <wipes tear from eye> eeehh <chuckles>

"as a society we have decided that being gay isn't wrong"

That's not right. The position is that whether being gay is right or wrong isn't an issue the state should regulate, and it's not something that should be addressed (in most circumstances) in business either. The baker is still free to think that being gay is wrong, just like he is entitled to think that being a Catholic/Prod is wrong or being an adulterer is wrong.

From looking at the case it seems the folk ordering the cake have gone out of their way to deliberately provoke this row in order to get a business whose views they don't agree with to be taken to court. Loads of other places they could have had their cake made.

No question that gay folk have been treated very badly in the past but that doesn't excuse intolerance and vindictiveness now going the other way.

As for businesses in general, it should be up to them who they do business with. If they want to turn customers away that might be commercial silliness, but in a free country that should be their right. They aren't stopping the buyer taking his business elsewhere.

Agree completely

Thing is, they should also be free to believe in magical sky fairies and old fiction books, and have those beliefs respected as well.

I'm not talking about beliefs being respected, just the basic human right/freedom of consenting adults to relate with each other without being systematically attacked, marginalized or humiliated for it. You could believe (say) that a magical floating invisible teapot tells you to publically condemn all lesbians and gays and hang a male goat on Wednesdays ... but why should your belief be automatically respected? Respect your right to believe what you will, but *respect* your beliefs? On what grounds?

that doesn't excuse intolerance and vindictiveness now going the other way.

As for businesses in general, it should be up to them who they do business with.

If they want to turn customers away that might be commercial silliness, but in a free country that should be their right.

They aren't stopping the buyer taking his business elsewhere.

How are they victimising them

By taking them to court, possibly resulting in criminal records, loss of business and redundancies. That strikes me as victimising people because of their beliefs.

As a business man I used to turn bad business away, perfectly legal. I made absolutely sure I never turned away business if in doing so I could have been accused of discrimination as defined in EU law. This sometimes meant "positive discrimination" as I did business with people whom I would normally have refused as bad business but would have risked being accused of discrimination had I done so.

Sometimes discrimination law have have bizarre consequences. It's better than no discrimination law at all though.

Oh well i guess you will need to forgive them then

"Going into a halal butchers and ordering bacon is harassment,"

Though I can think of a few contextual situations where that would be absolutely true. "Oi, what about some baaacon eh? You love that don'tyaaarghh! Make sure you wipe yer hands on that tea towel, or is that yer 'eadgear, eh?"

Walking in innocently and ordering bacon by mistake would not be one of them, agreed.

Dude from the Equality commission got owned on the BBC tonight.

But I agree that its wrong to discrimnate but we all have the freedom to choose who we associate with and in the same way do business with.
I (as a shop owner) have told people to F right off for being ignorant insulting douche bags and it is my right to choose not to do business with them.

From looking at the case it seems the folk ordering the cake have gone out of their way to deliberately provoke this row in order to get a business whose views they don't agree with to be taken to court.

Why do people keep pointing this out as if it is an insightful revelation? The guy that ordered the cake was a gay rights activist and the cake had a gay rights campaign logo on it. Yes, it was obviously a targeted attempt to raise the issue and cause the row.

Personally I don't think that challenging bigots qualifies as "intolerance" or "vindictiveness" but YMMV.

As for businesses in general, it should be up to them who they do business with.

Nope, the law says otherwise.

Would you be happy to see businesses display "No Blacks, No Irish" signs for instance?

Edit: typing too slow. Others have made the point. I'm off to bed.

agree that its wrong to discrimnate but we all have the freedom to choose who we associate with and in the same way do business with.

Basically they want different things so pick which right you support

The right to be treated equally or the right to discriminate against people

it is not a dilemma for me tbh

Just spoke to a pal who is gay to see what he thought. His opinion was that they should just have gone elsewhere ("it's only a bloody cake" were his exact words) and that he reckoned the people taking the court action were an embarrassment to the people who fought for genuine gay rights.

He had no problem with people not agreeing with his lifestyle and figured if the worst he was going to face in terms of discrimination was having to find an alternative bakers he was probably able to live with that.

From looking at the case it seems the folk ordering the cake have gone out of their way to deliberately provoke this row in order to get a business whose views they don't agree with to be taken to court. Loads of other places they could have had their cake made.

I still reckon that the bigger picture here is to provoke a larger debate. In April, Stormont rejected a Sinn Fèin motion to legalise gay marriage, with unionists, chiefly the DUP voting against the motion, and Sinn Féin and Alliance (bar two) voting for. NI remains the last part of the UK where same-sex marriage is still not legal. It no coincidence that the Christian Institute has stepped in so quickly here, and is supporting the McArthurs (who got the name for their bakery business from a verse in Genesis). Who knows how closely connected the McArthurs are connected with the CI...

If LGBT equality campaigners are aware that a business the size of Ashers is openly refusing to serve people because of their sexuality, then it's fair game as far as I'm concerned. Time after time, the DUP has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. All it ever wants to say is "No." By hook or by crook, I'm more than happy for them to be dragged there yet again.

This is a an extract from wiki, describing the first minister, Peter Robinson's wife's, who was also an MLA, approach to homosexuality:

In June 2008, shortly after a physical assault on a homosexual man in Northern Ireland, she made comments on the BBC Radio Ulster's Stephen Nolan Show offering to recommend homosexuals to psychiatric counselling.[24] While condemning the attack,[25] she called homosexuality an "abomination" that made her feel "sick" and "nauseous", and offered to refer homosexuals to a psychiatrist she knew. In a subsequent interview, Robinson defended her views and denied prejudice against homosexuals, saying that "just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God".[26] Her comments were rebuffed by representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Rainbow Project, the Alliance Party,[27] Sinn Féin,[28] and the Social Democratic and Labour Party.[29][30] The psychiatrist in question, Dr. Paul Miller later resigned as her adviser and stood down from his post of consultant psychiatrist at Belfast's Mater hospital. He is no longer a consultant psychiatrist within the NHS and has been reported to the General Medical Council (GMC).[31][32] A police investigation followed these comments, over 100 complaints were made,[33][34][35] and gay rights activist Robert Toner also made a complaint to the Equality Commission.[33][36][37][38]

Robinson subsequently repeated her views in parliamentary session. Speaking in a 17 June 2008 Northern Ireland Grand Committee session on Risk Assessment and Management of Sex Offenders, she said: "There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children"[39] She reiterated her statement to the Belfast Telegraph on 21 June 2008,[40] but later stated that she had been "misrepresented" in Hansard.[41] This statement was challenged when Alliance Party Executive Director Gerry Lynch confirmed with Hansard staff that Robinson's comments were in fact correctly quoted.[42] Further controversy was caused on 17 July 2008 when on the Stephen Nolan Show Robinson stated "it is the government's responsibility to uphold God's law".[43] In the Northern Ireland Assembly on 30 June 2008, in a discussion about "LGBT Groups: Mental-Health Needs", Robinson said that "Homosexuality, like all sin, is an abomination", and suggested that teenagers needed help deciding whether they were homosexual or heterosexual.[44][45] During this period, Robinson herself was having an extra-marital affair with a 19-year old man.[46]

If you are LGBT in Northern Ireland, this is the kind of thing you have to listen to elected representatives saying. It's no wonder that businesses like Ashers are being targeted. They deserve it.

........and figured if the worst he was going to face in terms of discrimination was having to find an alternative bakers he was probably able to live with that.

Commonsense.......how quaint, amusing, and out of place, it sometimes seems to be.

They are refusing their business because they are gay.....that is not legal

This is simply not true (well, not as the story has been reported at any rate)

They refused to supply a specific cake with a specific message on it - they did not refuse to do business with a particular person or type of persons - just supply a particular bespoke product. This is a totally different thing. For all we know they could have happily supplied them with thousands of off-the-shelf fairy cakes or a bespoke cake with a benign message on it - just not one with a missive they found abhorrent to their religious views. A message supporting same sex marriage that is not actually legal where this incident happened.

A non religious or sexual orientation alternative:-

A black man walks into a cake shop and is turned away from buying a cake, any cake = discriminatory. Plain and simple.

A black (or white, makes no odds) man walks into a cake shop and orders the baker to make him a cake with a picture of President Obama on it and the message "Black Power". The baker refuses = bigoted, yes; racist, yes; discriminatory, no. I guess it could be discriminatory to the cake, but not the person. He is refusing to make the cake, not serve the person.

I can't begin to understand the thinking of the baker because I don't share his religious beliefs so the refusal makes no sense to me; but that still does not mean he discriminated by outright refusing to do business with a gay man; he just refused to make him what he wanted.

So, question for the folks who think "just go elsewhere, there's other cake shops" is the answer. At what point are there enough cake shops that it's OK for some to turn away the pink pound? Is it OK as long as 90% will serve you? 50%? 1%?

If there's only 1 cake shop in town, does that mean they don't have the right to choose who they serve, because people [i]can't[/i] just go elsewhere?? What if there's 2 cake shops and they're both run by homophobes? Do they have to take turns?

Might sound like hypotheticals but as soon as you get into "fine as long as" you get into this too. And where we are now isn't some perfect post-equal-rights world, the same sliding scales apply- if you say "there's no need for such an aggressive approach any more", where is that cutoff?

They refused to supply a specific cake with a specific message on it - they did not refuse to do business with a particular person or type of persons - just supply a particular bespoke product.

From looking at the case it seems the folk ordering the cake have gone out of their way to deliberately provoke this row in order to get a business whose views they don't agree with to be taken to court. Loads of other places they could have had their cake made.

The right to be treated equally or the right to discriminate against people

it is not a dilemma for me tbh

This ^

Very difficult.

Petty minded bigots who selectively pick from the many nasty bits of the OT to decide who they hate...

But arguments about cake may seem petty until one decides where people can draw the line about what is acceptable "choice" for a business or person.

Could I, as a GP, refuse to treat certain sexual problems, people with certain sexualities or religions?

At the very least, I'd like all businesses with this kind of ethic to display a Fish sign so I can choose to take my money elsewhere... But we know that after centuries of judging and discriminating against people on grounds of religious belief, some Christians aren't so happy to see the same happen to them. Even in the squeals of "militancy" and unfairness we see here when some have their views challenged...

Pragmatically, I think that if you open a business, you don't get to discriminate in this way, unless you are asked to do something illegal or which is a lie.

Kenny I just spoke to a christian friend and they said the christians should be more christian and said its only a bloody cake and that the christians were an embarrassment to christians and not a good example of gods love or christinaity.

We are both very lucky to have a "friend" who can speak agree with us arent we 🙄

Even if your comments are true all it shows is that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, dont all agree on this issue.

Its not news and they no more speak for all homosexuals than you or I speak for all heterosexuals.

Bloody Hell DD those views are shocking...worse than child abuse 😯

display a Fish sign so I can choose to take my money elsewhere... But we know that after centuries of judging and discriminating against people on grounds of religious belief, some Christians aren't so happy to see the same happen to them

[img] [/img]

Millenium Falcon cake available for Jedi Warrior Marrideggdes

christians. They don't like it uppem.

[img] [/img]

Could I, as a GP, refuse to treat certain sexual problems, people with certain sexualities or religions?

To be fair, doctors can refuse to offer or provide certain services to patients on the basis that it conflicts with their own personal belief or conscience...

But theres a clear element of [s]homophobia[/s] heterophobia in that argument – The whole “[s]gays[/s] straights can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of [s]homosexuality[/s] heterosexuality as a form of psychiatric illness. The implication that [s]gay[/s] straight people would be [s]straight[/s] gay, if only they could!

I just spoke to a Gay Christian friend and he said 'It's only a bloody cake, kill them all!!!!!'.

Ninfan- moving the goal posts they cannot do what they said
they can deny doing certain treatments to EVERYONE - big difference and my bold

From the BMA
http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/expressions-of-doctors-beliefs

*doctors should have a right to conscientiously object to participation in abortion, fertility treatment and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, where there is another doctor willing to take over the patient's care;
*doctors should be able to request that arrangements are made to accommodate their conscientious objection to participating in other medical procedures, provided that patients are not disadvantaged. All requests should be considered on their merits;
[b]*doctors should not claim a conscientious objection to treating particular patients or groups of patients;[/b]
*doctors should not share their private moral views with patients unless explicitly invited to do so;
*doctors should ensure that any manifestation of their religious or cultural beliefs (such as clothing or other religious icons) do not impact negatively upon the therapeutic relationship

They do have to safeguard the patient so they cannot refuse to treat someone who is gay or a Muslim or whatever as you appeared to suggest.

PS Just noticed the time Kenny P posted - quote lucky your "gay friend" was up at midnight for a quick chat about the cake issue.

There's a video somewhere of a street voxpop asking people who think that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" (incredibly, mostly christians): "So, how old were you when you decided to be straight?"

Hilarious watching the respondents almost chewing off their own tongues, trying to think of an answer.

Laugh? I nearly crossed the aisle...

It is American though, and they are not representative of general intelligence levels.

Well, I just spoke spoke to my friend who's a gay Catholic baker who's a member of the Orange Order, and he says "nye surrender". Unfortunately, he wouldn't elaborate further so I'm not sure to whom he refuses to surrender.

Too stereotypes ?