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 think he’s 100% definitely blindingly obviously wrong to think that being gay is wrong

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?
The cake was ordered for an International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia event, hosted by Alliance councillor Andrew Muir, who said another bakery accepted the order[/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 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.

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.

Yeah that’s kind of a tricky one, I know why they do it but it’s still annoying. When mrs had a go at swimming there were a couple nights of the week where I couldn’t go (and as wkends are for mtbs and friday night is for boozing thats half the sodding week!)

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 so gay’

(and for what its worth, most of my gay friends really 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?

wearing bright pink tutu’s

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 you. 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 – but I am not a lawyer.

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?