gray - MemberI 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?
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
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.
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.
