You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I was kind of half listening to this on the radio last night - interesting debate.
A chap ordered a cake from a baker that he wanted decorated with a message celebrating same-sex marriage (or civil partnership). Baker refunds money and refuses order as he is a "Christian Baker" and the cake is an abomination.
Chap say that he is being discriminated against for being gay by the baker. Baker says he has the right to express his religious beliefs. And this is all in Northern Ireland, the world home of balanced and considered views when it comes to such matters.
Who is right ?? Are they both right ?? (Have we done this already ?) Cake off !!
I bet 10p there's businesses in Brighton that compromise their beliefs to maintain a customer base
Was it a rainbow cake?
Would you want to eat a cake made by someone who was forced to make it by a lawsuit?
Personal opinion only, the bakers are ****s and deserve to lose customers. You open a public business as a baker and take the consequences.
They're using the excuse that a vegetarian café could refuse to serve meat, the fundamental difference is the vegetarian café would be opened and advertised as vegetarian.
What the bakers want is similar to me opening a bike shop and refusing service to Audi Drivers because I believe that Audi's are the car of the devil.
I suspect the case is getting so much publicity because it crosses over into devolved laws and the various legal entities want to make sure that any legal precedents set aren't going to stitch anyone up later.
Has this not been decided (in the courts) already, it's quite an old case?
Parts of Scotland (among others) come a close second BTW 🙁 - where was the gay B&B case?
Can a cake be gay ?
A big lavender cream puff?
[img] 
[/img]
Have we done this already ?
Yep.
While I think everyone's views should be respected. iIf you want to run a business, then it can't be above the law. The Bakers aren't a charity or religious organisation.
It was on the radio last night - must be an appeal going through or something - first I had heard about it, and I have a google alert set up for gay Christian cakes in Ulster.
They're using the excuse that a vegetarian café could refuse to serve meat, the fundamental difference is the vegetarian café would be opened and advertised as vegetarian.
The difference is that a vegetarian café doesn't use certain ingredients. You might find other restaurants which serve meat, but not foie gras, for example.
I'm pretty sure that you can't buy gay flour and eggs...
The UK's discrimination laws protect people from discriminate against because of:
age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
Having a "religious belief" doesn't exclude you from the law
The vegetarian restaurant argument is poor.
Complicated issue but I don't think it should have ended up being a legal matter. The customer may feel wronged under equality legislation but on the other hand the business owner have their human rights that protects the religious beliefs and one should not trump the other.
If one is allowed to be victorious over the other it will lead to abuse of the system.
I think the right way around this is to insist that shops which wish to make a massive silly fuss about serving gay people be required to display a prominent sign reading:
"No Gayness Tolerated Here Because We Are Good Christian Folk".
🙂
but on the other hand the business owner have their human rights that protects the religious beliefs and one should not trump the other.
Homophobia, Racism and Misogyny are examples of beliefs that don't need protecting not matter what excuse is used.
Stupid bakers are entirely able to reject custom. If they'd said they were too busy or didn't have pink icing or whatever other entirely fabricated but not blatently homophobic reason it'd be fine. But dumbasses rejected it because it might be seen to make them approve of gay. And for that level of stupidity and willingness to argue alone they deserved to lose their legal case.
If there religion specifically said they couldn't bake gay cakes I'd be more tolerant tbh but this isn't "my religion doesn't let me do this", it's "I don't want to do this, because I'm a ****, also religion blah blah"
the business owner have their human rights that protects the religious belief
That protects them from not being discriminated against, ie a gay bakers wouldn't be allowed to refuse them on grounds of their beliefs. It doesn't protect their right to be discriminatory bellends.
Religions crow about how they have shaped morals in modern society, but I can only see evidence of how they have held them back.
but on the other hand the business owner have their human rights that protects the religious beliefs and one should not trump the other.
Homophobia, Racism and Misogyny are examples of beliefs that don't need protecting not matter what excuse is used.
It's still their religious belief, like it or not. Just the same as you can't force the church to allow a same sex marriage.
If you go down this road of forcing others to bend to your will regardless of their own human rights what is stop people being forced to do things that offends their beliefs in fear of being prosecuted under another law.
Just the same as you can't force the church to allow a same sex marriage.
They should. If they want to keep the same tax breaks etc that they currently have, they should have to abide by all the laws, not pick and choose.
I suppose a different analogy would be if the bakers were asked to make a cake with a swastika on it. To which the answer is that neo-Nazis aren't a persecuted group.
Just the same as you can't force the church to allow a same sex marriage.
Which was a mistake, if churches are to be part of the legal process of marriage then they should not be allowed to discriminate. No good having laws against discrimination and then saying actually it doesn't apply to everyone. It is an insanely stupid and ironic interpretation of discrimination that the law actually excludes elements of society in such a manner.
Would it not have just been simpler to call the baker a prat, give him a good slagging via twitter/facebook and find another more sensible baker?
Should we treat all crimes that way?
IIRC the point of the cake was to make a point rather than get a cake.Would it not have just been simpler to call the baker a prat, give him a good slagging via twitter/facebook and find another more sensible baker?
No, but in this case maybe.
His views are stupid but he's entitled to them.
Just the same as you can't force the church to allow a same sex marriage.
Which is why we shouldn't have a state church and why they shouldn't be performing the legal part of wedding ceremonies.
It's still their religious belief, like it or not.
They are free to hold whatever view they want, no matter how bigoted. Doesn't mean it can't be criticised.
Just the same as you can't force the church to allow a same sex marriage.
Well actually we (society) could if we (society) wanted to.
A deeply held racist belief wouldn't be tolerated even were it based on a religious belief.
I'm not agreeing that it is right but I don't agree with ignoring the other parties religious beliefs. If they argued that they aren't doing the cake because they hate gays and were atheist then prosecute them but they had beliefs regardless of how out of touch with society they may be.
If they argued that they aren't doing the cake because they hate gays and were atheist then prosecute them but they had beliefs regardless of how out of touch with society they may be.
You don't get a free pass to break the law just because or your religion.
If they argued that they aren't doing the cake because they hate gays and were atheist then prosecute them but they had beliefs regardless of how out of touch with society they may be.
So it's ok for Christians to hate gays, but not atheists? Why should one particular belief trump another?
Don't think it's really about a cake, tbh. It's a gay activist playing 'Gotcha!' with a couple of backward Christians, thus infantilising a major issue for NI society. A plague on both their houses.swavis - MemberWould it not have just been simpler to call the baker a prat, give him a good slagging via twitter/facebook and find another more sensible baker?
So it's wrong to highlight criminality?
Seems quite a different viewpoint to the one expressed on this thread
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/anybody-know-a-les-boxall-or-similar
Boycott the cake maker?
What if was sexist or racist?
So it's ok for Christians to hate gays, but not atheists?
I don't think the baker ever said they hated gay people.
The issue they had was the slogan was along the lines of "Support Gay Marriage".
There are lots of religious groups that don't have a problem with gay relationships or civil partnerships but don't agree with gay marriage. The argument being that it is a religious ceremony.
I heard some gay guy on the radio arguing that he didn't want gay "marriage" and that there should only be civil partnerships.
It's a tricky situation and seems to have been more complicated be some of the devolved laws brought in by NI to protect religious beliefs.
For context Ashers is not a quaint local bakery. They supply various baked goods to most shops in Northern Ireland including Tescos. They're a million pound if not multi million pound business, and despite this the "family" had their legal fees paid by the Christian Institute.
The family have ties to, and move in the same political/religious circles as the DUP. The ruling party in Northern Ireland and the party who have consistently blocked, veto'd and obstructed any and all bills for gay rights and equality in Northern Ireland.
There was obviously some prior comment or action which led to this cake fiasco, and Ashers had originally agreed to bake the cake knowing it was just a cake but they changed their minds no doubt after consulting with their friends in the DUP, the Free Presbyterian Church and the Christian Institute.
I think you should be able to choose a civil partnership [i]or[/i] marriage regardless of sexuality, and I don't think the church should be involved with either, if you want a religious ceremony or blessing fine but it should not be legally recognised.
I used to be fine with church weddings having legal recognition, but then they started picking on the gays so in my mind they lost that right.
Oh and I checked, Ashers bakery in Scotland are not connected to the NI one so supplies of dreamrings are uninterrupted.
From what I remember from when this was originally reported it was not the fact the chap was gay, it was the slogan he wanted on the cake that they refused.
If he had gone in and asked for a standard wedding cake I don't imagine it would have been an issue but to knowingly ask a religious baker to put a slogan on a cake you know they disagree with is a bit of a childish thing to do.
Do you think they should put anything on a cake that the public ask for? What about going in to Millies Cookies and asking for a birthday cookie with "Millies cookies are S"£te" on it. Do you think they would refuse to do that knowing full well it would offend them?
Whilst the guy should not be refused service for his orientation he comes across as being an monumentally antagonistic tool.
I don't think the baker ever said they hated gay people.
I was responding to a quote.
The argument being that it is a religious ceremony.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony.
Correct but getting married in church is a religious ceremony. Same sex marriages aren't conducting in churches or mosques and Christian ceremonies are not performed in mosques and visa versa as it offends their [i]beliefs[/i]
I don't have any belief any religion but nor do I get people to act against their faith.
Tatchell covers the difference between discriminating between an individual and against an idea quite well here. I'm sure there is an overlap between the two, so it's good that it's all getting an airing in the Appeal Court.
Doesn't make the owners right to be anti gay marriage, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're breaking the law.
A good contrast is the Christian B&B owners who chucked out a couple of gay blokes - that's direct discrimination.
jonm81
knowingly ask a religious baker to put a slogan on a cake you know they disagree with is a bit of a childish thing to do.
They don't advertise themselves as a Christian only Bakery.
Do you think they should put anything on a cake that the public ask for? What about going in to Millies Cookies and asking for a birthday cookie with "Millies cookies are S"£te" on it. Do you think they would refuse to do that knowing full well it would offend them?
The counter argument is always this, but you are equating LGBT equality with something offensive.
"Oh now a racist can ask for a cake that says death to all Muslims or blacks or ****s"
No, because that's offensive. Saying gay people should have equal rights is not offensive.
However, if it passes that a Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake because someone's lifestyle choice disagrees with their iron age superstition you now have a legal precedent that a Jewish baker can refuse to bake Christmas cake, or a muslim baker can refuse to bake a cake for a soldier or a neo-nazi baker can refuse to bake a cake for black people because it goes against their deeply held belief.
Whilst the guy should not be refused service for his orientation he comes across as being an monumentally antagonistic tool.
You might feel like a massively antagonistic tool if people used iron age superstition to determine your freedom to live your life as an equal member of society.
Correct but getting married in church is a religious ceremony.
There is no religious aspect to the marriage contract, regardless of where the ceremony is performed.
I don't have any belief any religion but nor do I get people to act against their faith.
I own a B&B: the flying spaghetti monster tells me that Christians aren't allowed to stay.
craigxxl - MemberCorrect but getting married in church is a religious ceremony.
Yup, but the act of becoming legally married is a matter for the state. It's pretty reasonable to say "If you want the right to marry people, then you get the duty to marry people"- and if they're not happy with marrying people on those terms then they just don't get to marry people at all. Hold a service, get an official in to do the actual marriage, same as happens in hotels and registry offices.
They're using the excuse that a vegetarian café could refuse to serve meat, the fundamental difference is the vegetarian café would be opened and advertised as vegetarian.
... which is an obvious straw man to anyone with a shred of critical thinking. A vegetarian cafe will sell to anyone, they just don't sell meat. They don't sell a lot of other things too, Nissan exhaust parts for example. The only way that analogy would hold water would be if a vegetarian cafe refused to serve meat-eaters, rather than just not sell meat.
Has this not been decided (in the courts) already, it's quite an old case?
That's what I thought. It's definitely a story that's a year or two old, but I thought from memory that was a couple of women requesting the cake rather than a couple of guys? Is this the same tale resurfacing?
was the slogan push the poo back in?
Fairy cakes are gay. And cream puffs, as already mentioned. In fact they are proof that gayism is natural and god-created.
Aren't pubs allowed to choose who they serve? I think cake shops should be allowed to choose what they won't put on a cake, but not who they will sell it to. So if it is two figurines of men and they don't want to do it then that's their choice. But if the gays are happy to have a different cake then they shouldn't be able to refuse to sell it to gays. Personally I'd take my business elsewhere, but they may have wanted to take a stand (a cake stand, if you will).
They don't advertise themselves as a Christian Bakery.
No, they don't advertise it but it is well known in the area that they are.
The counter argument is always this, but you are equating LGBT equality with something offensive.
I am equating printing things that individuals find offensive. They didn't refuse to make the guy a cake but they did refuse to print the slogan he wanted on the cake as they found it offensive (even if that offense is due to their belief on a made up deity).
people used iron age superstition to determine your freedom to live your life as an equal member of society.
They have not tried to determine how he lives his life. They have not tried to ban him from being gay. As far as I know they have not even refused to make him a cake. They have just refused to print a slogan on a cake they disagree with.
I would imagine most shops would have also refused to print "I'm marrying my cousin" as it is against most peoples beliefs but would that be considered "determine your freedom to live your life as an equal member of society" and discrimination or would it be considered OK to refuse that?
If I knew something was against someones beliefs I would not consciously ask them to do it especially if there were other options available.
No, they don't advertise it but it is well known in the area that they are.
It is now. But prior to the court case, whilst it was known that the owners were Christians I don't think anyone would have guessed that a large commercial bakery chain would operate along fundamentalist religious guidelines.
I am equating printing things that individuals find offensive.
So if a Muslim baker feels it's offensive to print a cake for a British Soldier coming home from Afghanistan that's okay because it offends his wahhabist sympathies?
They have not tried to determine how he lives his life. They have not tried to ban him from being gay. As far as I know they have not even refused to make him a cake. They have just refused to print a slogan on a cake they disagree with.
As per my earlier post, this church and political party have indeed consistently and decisively moved to restrict freedom and equality for gay people in Northern Ireland.
So if a Muslim baker feels it's offensive to print a cake for a British Soldier coming home from Afghanistan that's okay because he finds it offensive?
No that would not be ok. however if the soldiers family asked for "Back from Afghan, glad you got them before they got you!" (something someone I used to know had put on a card for a returning soldier and pretty damn distasteful in my opinion) to be printed on the cake I would have no issues with that being refused by a Muslim baker.
Aren't pubs allowed to choose who they serve?
They're a business so they're allowed to discriminate on some things (footwear for example) but not others (race for example).
If the pub was a religious establishment, it would be allowed to discriminate on religion. But it's not, and neither is a bakery.
"Back from Afghan, glad you got them before they got you!"
I'm not sure why you think that's offensive?
If I had friends and family fighting in a frontline unit that's exactly what I would be thinking when they came home safe.
Really this whole thing just comes down to getting a bit creative when declining business. Simply "not being able to take your order at this time" ought to suffice. There is no obligation as far as I'm aware of a business to deal with any particular person or body if they don't feel like it.
jonm81No that would not be ok. however if the soldiers family asked for "Back from Afghan, glad you got them before they got you!" (something someone I used to know had put on a card for a returning soldier and pretty damn distasteful in my opinion) to be printed on the cake I would have no issues with that being refused by a Muslim baker.
So essentially someone shouldn't be able to refuse something they disagree with purely for religious reasons unless it's grossly offensive, or in very poor taste.
Norn Irn's pretty shocking when it comes to this sort of thing - you can't buy croissants because they're "bent", fairy cakes are out (so to speak) and the butcher's won't sell mince, it has to be a pound of "manly walk"
the butcher's won't sell mince, it has to be a pound of "manly walk"
Thanks, I now have coffee up my nose.
which is an obvious straw man to anyone with a shred of critical thinking. [s]A vegetarian cafe[/s] Ashers Bakery will sell to anyone, they just don't sell [s]meat[/s] pro gay rights cakes. They don't sell a lot of other things too, Nissan exhaust parts for example. The only way that analogy would hold water would be if a [s]vegetarian cafe[/s] Ashers Bakery refused to serve [s]meat-eaters[/s], all gay people rather than just not sell [s]meat[/s] pro gay rights cakes.
That really doesn't work.
They don't sell "pro gay rights cakes," they sell cakes with writing on them.
I wonder idly whether their Christian sensibilities would permit them to make an Eid Mubarak cake on request, or provide the catering for a bar mitzvah.
Last I looked, marrying your cousin is against the law, whereas being gay is not.
Surprisingly it isn't as cousins are considered distant enough not to affect the gene pool. Legally you can even sleep with them if you want.
An example of religious beliefs getting in the way of retail service is catholic and muslim pharmacists refusing to administer the morning after pill. A pharmacy and the NHS cannot legally force the pharmacist to carry out this service (nor discipline them for refusing) even if it is contractual as there is a legal right to refuse service on religious grounds. This is direct discrimination against the customer based on religious beliefs
So essentially someone shouldn't be able to refuse something they disagree with purely for religious reasons unless it's grossly offensive, or in very poor taste.
Exactly, but the difficulty comes from what you define as "grossly offensive or in very poor taste". What may not be grossly offensive to you may well be to someone with religious beliefs. It is the same difficulty faced by police and the CPS in deciding when to charge/prosecute someone under that offensive communications act. Plenty of people have been charged despite the fact what they said may not be offensive to you or me.
In this case the baker found the slogan grossly offensive and refused to make the cake. I don't have issue with that. If they had refused to make any form of cake and refused any service to gay people that would rightly be discrimination and they should be hammered for it.
I should say that I don't agree with the bakers views/opinions/beliefs but neither do I agree with the customer trying to force them to do something against their beliefs.
Hmm I think I get greatapes point (and tatchell's from the link further up) I'm just not sure it's right.That really doesn't work.
If the baker verdict is upheld a jewish printer was asked to make a holocaust denial poster he would have to do it - well no they wouldn't because holocaust deniers aren't protected. Do we have a "protected from discrimination" slogan to use as an example? (I know there was the example above but I'm pretty sure soldiers aren't a legally protected group)
It's a tricky one as "I specifically disagree with the pro gay marriage slogan" may be acceptable but religious groups do have a history of discrimination, so is the "it's only the slogan I disagree with, I love gays really" just a new tack to take for the appeal?
Indeed.
I also wonder if there is a list, or a cut-off point, or some kind of sliding scale.
I think we should indulge in some proper scientific research and flood their ordering system with requests of this nature, see who gets to place and order and all report back.
I'm going for a Fox Hunting Éclair.
As a purely factual observation - I don't think Holocaust Denier is on the list of protected statuses under the Equalities Act. I will check.
Surely the shop can accept or decline what ever custom they want? That's their loss....
Surely the shop can accept or decline what ever custom they want? That's their loss....
[img] 
[/img]
well no because if you walk into a shop and try to buy a packet of crisps and the proprietor says "no I won't sell that to you because you're the wrong colour/sex/other protected thing" then that would be discrimination and illegal.Surely the shop can accept or decline what ever custom they want? That's their loss....
I doubt it, similarly I don't think fat, ginger or people called tarquin are legally protected either so presumably you could discriminate on those grounds. It might make you a dick but I don't think you'd end up in court for it.I don't think Holocaust Denier is on the list of protected statuses under the Equalities Act
that sound about right?
Exactly, but the difficulty comes from what you define as "grossly offensive or in very poor taste".
n this case the baker found the slogan grossly offensive and refused to make the cake. I don't have issue with that.
Just to quickly recap, the cake was supposed to say "support gay marriage". This wouldn't even be an issue, it wouldn't even be a cake, were it not for the religiously motivated political maneuverings of the DUP/Free Presbyterians.
It should also be noted that Ashers, by the same token would/should refuse to bake cakes with any of the following slogans
"Women should have the same rights as men"
"Humans evolved from other primates"
"The earth is older than 3000 years old"
"People of other faiths will not burn in hell"
and so on, and so on....
a critical point missed in the debate above is that they accepted the order then changed their minds because of the gayness , it is discrimination to behave in a way that is not directly discriminatory but tends to disproportionately impact on a protected group .
crankboy - Membera critical point missed in the debate above is that they accepted the order then changed their minds because of the gayness ,
jimjam
Ashers had originally agreed to bake the cake.... but they changed their minds no doubt after consulting with their friends in the DUP, the Free Presbyterian Church and the Christian Institute.
I thought (relying on memory alone here) it was a staff member that took the order and then a boss that subsequently declined it? Which I took to mean the staff member was unaware that such an order was unacceptable to the bosses when they took it.
Should have tried the Pagan baker down the road.
[img] 
[/img]
Its all pretty simple really isnt it.
They are quite within their rights to say we won't make that design of cake for you, but we are happy to make you any other.
Its not OK to say we are not going to make any cake for you because your, gay, female, black etc.
Its not really that hard to work out is it !!!!
Jimjam, so if you went into a known Muslim/Hindu/Sikh bakery and asked for a cake saying "support Christian beliefs" you would fully expect them to make it? Following the original decision they would legally have to. How do you think they would be treated by their community if it was then published that they made a cake directly denouncing their own faith/beliefs?
It is not the wording of the slogan that they found offensive but its meaning. They do not support gay marriage due to their religious beliefs and made a conscious decision not to make a cake with that particular slogan on it.
Why deliberately make someone go against their beliefs just because you don't agree with them. Just let them continue to hold their beliefs in the knowledge they have identified themselves as backward thinking morons and avoid them in the future knowing they are in the minority.
They are quite within their rights to say we won't make that design of cake for you, but we are happy to make you any other.
What you said is exactly how it should be but now it's not that simple because the original decision means they don't have the right to say "we won't make that design of cake for you, but we are happy to make you any other".
Just let them continue to hold their beliefs in the knowledge they have identified themselves as backward thinking morons and avoid them in the future [b]knowing they are in the minority[/b].
Are they? I think homophobia is still very prevalent in society, and I reckon the majority will probably still hold some level of homophobic views, though most will keep quiet. Definitely a generational thing and it is improving, but I'd say it's still a big problem
Reading back on a couple of previous news articles, the excuse they gave wasn't homophobia but rather (paraphrasing) "it says so in the bible." Isn't that the salient point that needs challenging? Does the bible explicitly preclude same-sex marriage? Where?
And if, in fact, it doesn't, their argument is moot so they'd be able to make the cake as ordered after all. Unless, y'know, they're really a bunch of screaming homophobes who are using religion as an excuse. But that can't be true can it, hardly "Christian values."
Here's the quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581
In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"[b]It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches,[/b] and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
Certainly?
There are grey areas in which you could say that the statement was a political viewpoint rather than based on homophobia, and having Tatchell on the side of the bakers may be significant.
However, IMHO you don't see the situation in the cartoon below very often, so I'm going to go with bigotry as the best explanation.
[img] 
[/img]
Incidentally, you never see "christians" refusing to serve prawn sandwiches or bacon butties to women on their period, or people wearing clothes with more then one type of cloth.
Some would say that that makes them massive hypocrites, who have historically tailored their religion to disadvantage certain specific groups?
Hmmmm?
jonm81Jimjam, so if you went into a known Muslim/Hindu/Sikh bakery and asked for a cake saying "support Christian beliefs" you would fully expect them to make it? Following the original decision they would legally have to. How do you think they would be treated by their community if it was then published that they made a cake directly denouncing their own faith/beliefs?
I would if it was just a high street bakery catering to everyone which happened to be owned by muslims/sikhs/whoever. Which is exactly the case here.
It's a different story if it's a shop called "Ashers Christian Cakes" and there is adequate signage and indication that they won't print anything which would go against their "faith".