# Christian bakers 'gay cake' appeal defeat



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37753030

hmmm - struggle with this one - because I don't see any discrimination against the LGBT community - just a refusal to communicate a message they don't believe in.

And so what does it mean?

My own church lets out our church hall to the community for their parties, events, concerts etc.  If say a Death Metal Band came along and asked to hold a gig in our hall - and their branding and music was of a 'satanic' nature (plenty of it is) - we'd refuse to take their booking on the grounds that we found their message offensive and against our beliefs.

This ruling means that we'd be guilty of the same offence (discrimination) as the Northern Irish bakers.  And that is plainly just stupid.

Or if I am an artist - what if I get asked to do a painting of something I found very offensive and so refuse to take the commission?


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2016)

THe fault lie shame not with the fact that you don't agree with the lifestyle, but that you apparently find it "offensive". Not particularly Christian, or humanitarian. I can only assume that Gay immigrants are not welcome either in your Christian country. 

And you wonder why people are flocking away from Religion, when you can't even follow your own teachings.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			THe fault lie shame not with the fact that you don't agree with the lifestyle, but that you apparently find it "offensive". Not particularly Christian, or humanitarian. I can only assume that Gay immigrants are not welcome either in your Christian country. 

And you wonder why people are flocking away from Religion, when you can't even follow your own teachings.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot control peoples minds like that.  If someone finds it offensive then that's their prerogative as long as they don't actively discriminate or openly cause offense.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You cannot control peoples minds like that.  If someone finds it offensive then that's their prerogative as long as they don't actively discriminate or openly cause offense.
		
Click to expand...

Who exactly is attempting to control his mind? He's free to be offended by whatever he likes with no influence from me. However, he has to accept that hypocrisy will be highlighted. He also has to accept that being offended by something doesn't give a business the right to discriminate. 
He asked the question, he got an answer. This isn't a Vulcan mind trick.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Oct 25, 2016)

I'm waiting for the first Muslim Butcher to be sued for not supplying pork or a Muslim printer for not publishing cartoons of Mohammed, frankly the ruling is bizarre if somebody dosent want to do something how can you decide they should just because the complainant is some sort of minority absolute stupidity.
Its things like this that gets political correctness a bad name.


----------



## Slime (Oct 25, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			I'm waiting for the first Muslim Butcher to be sued for not supplying pork or a Muslim printer for not publishing cartoons of Mohammed, frankly the ruling is bizarre if somebody dosent want to do something how can you decide they should just because the complainant is some sort of minority absolute stupidity.
Its things like this that gets political correctness a bad name.
		
Click to expand...

Same as that.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			I'm waiting for the first Muslim Butcher to be sued for not supplying pork or a Muslim printer for not publishing cartoons of Mohammed, frankly the ruling is bizarre if somebody dosent want to do something how can you decide they should just because the complainant is some sort of minority absolute stupidity.
Its things like this that gets political correctness a bad name.
		
Click to expand...

There is a large difference between the product and the customer. You can't legislate against a Muslim butcher not serving pork. You can against a Muslim butcher not serving chicken to a Jew because he doesn't like them (as an example).


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			THe fault lie shame not with the fact that you don't agree with the lifestyle, but that you apparently find it "offensive". Not particularly Christian, or humanitarian. I can only assume that Gay immigrants are not welcome either in your Christian country. 

And you wonder why people are flocking away from Religion, when you can't even follow your own teachings.
		
Click to expand...

You have made a massive assumption about my denomination (I have no idea what you thought it was) - and in fact you have got it totally wrong.  The General Assembly of my denomination  (the United Reformed Church) has voted to allow individual congregations to make their own decision on whether it should accept requests for a same-sex marriage to be conduction in their church - but in principle my denomination is accepting of same-sex marriage.    The congregation I am a member of have yet to make that decision.  I suspect that we will support same-sex marriage ceremonies to be carried out in our church.

And as it happens our decision and that of the GA are very much made in the context of the teachings of the bible - interpreted and understood as they must be in the context of the 21st Century. Not all denominations are the same.

If you had managed to see past your immediate anti-religion bias you'd read that my question was about the implications of the ruling.  I gave an example of us refusing a booking from a death metal group because of their message - we'd be breaking the law?

And the artist example?


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You have made a massive assumption about my denomination (I have no idea what you thought it was) - and in fact you have got it totally wrong.  The General Assembly of my denomination  (the United Reformed Church) has voted to allow individual congregations to make their own decision on whether it should accept requests for a same-sex marriage to be conduction in their church.  The congregation I am a member of have yet to make that decision.  I suspect that we will support same-sex marriage ceremonies to be carried out in our church.

If you had managed to see past your immediate anti-religion bias you'd read that my question was about the implications of the ruling.  I gave an example of us refusing a booking from a death metal group because of their message - we'd be breaking the law?

And the artist example?
		
Click to expand...

I've made no assumption about your denomination at all. Your Christian beliefs are paraded daily on here. 

Your example of a "Satanic" death metal band is spurious in the extreme. You are equating purveyors of hate and intolerance with a loving couple. Ridiculous. Now, if the cake had a message of hatred against straight people on top then I'd agree, but I suspect it didn't.

Oh, and I'm not anti-religion. However, I am "anti-people who use religion to support their own hatred and intolerance".. Quite different.


----------



## faroyon (Oct 25, 2016)

Me too


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			I've made no assumption about your denomination at all. Your Christian beliefs are paraded daily on here. 

Your example of a "Satanic" death metal band is spurious in the extreme. You are equating purveyors of hate and intolerance with a loving couple. Ridiculous. Now, if the cake had a message of hatred against straight people on top then I'd agree, but I suspect it didn't.
		
Click to expand...

eh?  Spurious?  Who are the purveyors of hate and intolerance?  I don't think you understand death/heavy metal if you think that that is what they purvey.

OK then - a local right wing facist group want to book a room in my church for a meeting.  We refuse as we think their message is obnoxious.  Guilty of discrimination?

And you made the HUGE assumption that I and my church were anti same-sex marriage when in principle we actually support it.  Would be nice to have an apology but you don't have to as I have already forgiven you your error


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			eh?  Spurious?  Who are the purveyors of hate and intolerance?  I don't think you understand death/heavy metal if you think that that is what they purvey.

OK then - a local right wing facist group want to book a room in my church for a meeting.  We refuse as we think their message is obnoxious.  Guilty of discrimination?

And you made the HUGE assumption that I and my church were anti same-sex marriage when in principle we actually support it.
		
Click to expand...

You claimed that the branding and message was Satanic. I'm assuming you didn't think that would be about tea parties and book clubs. Or do you have a different interpretation of Satanic?

And once again you are inferring that Gay couples are obnoxious. particularly pathetic. 

Quick question... Do you find gay couples obnoxious?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 25, 2016)

Oh dear. I'm afraid the court ruling is entirely correct and the only one it could be. You cannot run a business and discriminate based on any of a number of protected characteristics, sexual orientation being one.

You can discriminate against right wing fascists as, unsurprisingly, that isn't a protected characteristic.

It's not political correctness and it's not a difference of opinion. Gay people are real, we exist and being gay is just part of our nature. You cannot legally discriminate against us.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 25, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Oh dear. I'm afraid the court ruling is entirely correct and the only one it could be. You cannot run a business and discriminate based on any of a number of protected characteristics, sexual orientation being one.

You can discriminate against right wing fascists as, unsurprisingly, that isn't a protected characteristic.

It's not political correctness and it's not a difference of opinion. Gay people are real, we exist and being gay is just part of our nature. You cannot legally discriminate against us.
		
Click to expand...

:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 25, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Oh dear. I'm afraid the court ruling is entirely correct and the only one it could be. You cannot run a business and discriminate based on any of a number of protected characteristics, sexual orientation being one.

You can discriminate against right wing fascists as, unsurprisingly, that isn't a protected characteristic.

It's not political correctness and it's not a difference of opinion. Gay people are real, we exist and being gay is just part of our nature. You cannot legally discriminate against us.
		
Click to expand...

^
^
This


----------



## freddielong (Oct 25, 2016)

Why would you force someone who obviously doesn't like you to bake you a cake?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 25, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Why would you force someone who obviously doesn't like you to bake you a cake?
		
Click to expand...

Seriously? Or are you trolling?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 25, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Why would you force someone who obviously doesn't like you to bake you a cake?
		
Click to expand...

 I expect they went into the bakers expecting to be able to place an order for a cake of their choosing. That's how it usually works. The principle here is that if you are in the business of providing goods or services then you cannot discriminate on the basis of a list of protected characteristics. So, for example, you cannot refuse to serve black people, or old people, or disabled people, or in this case gay people. It doesn't matter that you don't agree or like it, it's the law. If you don't like it then don't get into the business of supplying goods and services. The court found (rightly IMHO) that refusing to make a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan was discrimination.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 25, 2016)

Karen has hit the nail on the head, you rent the roon to all and sundry but won't let It to people who's views you disagree with, that is plainly wrong. if you let like minded people use it for free I could see a difference but the church is out to make profit but be judgemental over the morals of the renters


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			I expect they went into the bakers expecting to be able to place an order for a cake of their choosing. That's how it usually works. The principle here is that if you are in the business of providing goods or services then you cannot discriminate on the basis of a list of protected characteristics. So, for example, you cannot refuse to serve black people, or old people, or disabled people, or in this case gay people. It doesn't matter that you don't agree or like it, it's the law. If you don't like it then don't get into the business of supplying goods and services. The court found (rightly IMHO) that refusing to make a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan was discrimination.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if the same verdict would have been made if the Baker was Muslim?  I would like to think it would.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 25, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Seriously? Or are you trolling?
		
Click to expand...

A little yes, but trades people choose jobs for reasons no one else knows all the time, these where honest just go somewhere else.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 25, 2016)

Reading Re what went off re bakers and gay couples is a tough one. The bakers did not want to make a cake because it went against there religous beliefs. To do so/bake the cake would endorse there support of  gays. They stuck by there principles and ended up in court. To which we all know the outcome. 
To discriminate against gays or others is against the law, yet still no pardons have been given against gays who in the past have been vilified. Whats that all about. Some people are still old school and need educating re gays. 
My brothers son came out as gay. It was not a suprise and yet he stuggled to to find the words to tell me. We were not bothered one bit However when he told my mother she said quote " I will stiill love ? But if he comes round to our house at christmas/family do wearing a dress i will have to say something". My bro said  "i dont know how i kept my hands off her throat".


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 25, 2016)

I belive it's Marks and Spencer's that ruled that non of their staff on the checkouts would have to serve a customer a product that was against their beliefs. Pork, alcohol for example. 

Is this any different?


----------



## JT77 (Oct 25, 2016)

From what I gather, the gent who ordered the cake was and would continue to be served, the issue I believe was what he wanted written on the cake. 
As to why the chap went there, there is a thought it was a deliberate ploy to use a Christian baker, who would not with to write said slogan based on their own personal beliefs so that the chap could show they descriminated against the gay community. 
It is fickle because the bakers did not refuse to serve him for being gay, but they didn't want to write on the cake what the chap wanted written. 
Whilst I fully agree that if the reason they did not serve was that the chap was gay, then they of course are guilty, in this case I can see why there is some confusion and disagreement. They did serve and do serve people who are gay, they just didn't want to write what the man wanted. 
As an aside, the gent I believe also wanted a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street printed with the words, not sure if this has any implications at all, just thought I put it up there.


----------



## louise_a (Oct 25, 2016)

JT77 said:



			From what I gather, the gent who ordered the cake was and would continue to be served, the issue I believe was what he wanted written on the cake. 
As to why the chap went there, there is a thought it was a deliberate ploy to use a Christian baker, who would not with to write said slogan based on their own personal beliefs so that the chap could show they descriminated against the gay community. 
It is fickle because the bakers did not refuse to serve him for being gay, but they didn't want to write on the cake what the chap wanted written. 
Whilst I fully agree that if the reason they did not serve was that the chap was gay, then they of course are guilty, in this case I can see why there is some confusion and disagreement. They did serve and do serve people who are gay, they just didn't want to write what the man wanted. 
As an aside, the gent I believe also wanted a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street printed with the words, not sure if this has any implications at all, just thought I put it up there.
		
Click to expand...

If the guy was a regular customer, why would he go somewhere else to buy one?


----------



## JT77 (Oct 25, 2016)

I didn't say that I just stated what I have heard on the news here and the radio.


----------



## louise_a (Oct 25, 2016)

JT77 said:



			I didn't say that I just stated what I have heard on the news here and the radio.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't have a go at you.


----------



## JT77 (Oct 25, 2016)

I also didn't say u were &#128556;
There has been a lot said about this here in Ballymena, and on local radio and tv.
I think the slogan read 'support gay marriage' and as the christians did not that was their refusal to write it.


----------



## PieMan (Oct 25, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Oh dear. I'm afraid the court ruling is entirely correct and the only one it could be. You cannot run a business and discriminate based on any of a number of protected characteristics, sexual orientation being one.

You can discriminate against right wing fascists as, unsurprisingly, that isn't a protected characteristic.

It's not political correctness and it's not a difference of opinion. Gay people are real, we exist and being gay is just part of our nature. You cannot legally discriminate against us.
		
Click to expand...

OMG - gay men and women play golf?!!!!   

Good post FD. :thup:


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 25, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			I belive it's Marks and Spencer's that ruled that non of their staff on the checkouts would have to serve a customer a product that was against their beliefs. Pork, alcohol for example. 

Is this any different?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, totally different.  M&S are not allowing staff to refuse to serve any particular product eg alcohol that they will not touch for religious reasons. In fact they apologised when this happened. What they are doing (along with other supermarkets) is assigning staff with such beliefs to roles where they don't have to. Not the same thing at all.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 25, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			Yes, totally different.  M&S are not allowing staff to refuse to serve any particular product eg alcohol that they will not touch for religious reasons. In fact they apologised when this happened. What they are doing (along with other supermarkets) is assigning staff with such beliefs to roles where they don't have to. Not the same thing at all.
		
Click to expand...

I only heard it mentioned once, so didn't know the full procedure. Just when it started in a local store queues would be forming as customers had to go to new cashiers. 

Hence the question. 

As someone With zero religious beliefs, I can say this impartially. If someone is bought up and taught something by religion, and truly believes it, then a country accepted that religion shouldn't be able to penalise said person. 

What if they were asked to make a cake that said "Jesus is a lie, he didn't turn water to wine"?

they didn't have a problem with the gay person. They just didn't belive the message.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			I only heard it mentioned once, so didn't know the full procedure. Just when it started in a local store queues would be forming as customers had to go to new cashiers. 

Hence the question. 

As someone With zero religious beliefs, I can say this impartially. If someone is bought up and taught something by religion, and truly believes it, then a country accepted that religion shouldn't be able to penalise said person. 

What if they were asked to make a cake that said "Jesus is a lie, he didn't turn water to wine"?

*they didn't have a problem with the gay person. They just didn't belive the message.*

Click to expand...

This is actually the point of my original post.  If the order was being placed by a 'straight' person they would have made the same decision and refused to decorate the cake with the specific message.

And so if I refuse a metal band a booking of our church hall because I don't like their message why would I similarly not be subject to the same court ruling.  Or a band promoting white supremacist views.

Or if an artist turns down a commission to paint a picture portraying gay male sex - where does that artist stand?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Who exactly is attempting to control his mind? He's free to be offended by whatever he likes with no influence from me. However, he has to accept that hypocrisy will be highlighted. He also has to accept that being offended by something doesn't give a business the right to discriminate. 
He asked the question, he got an answer. This isn't a Vulcan mind trick.
		
Click to expand...

BTW - by 'he' are you referring to me?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			You claimed that the branding and message was Satanic. I'm assuming you didn't think that would be about tea parties and book clubs. Or do you have a different interpretation of Satanic?

*And once again you are inferring that Gay couples are obnoxious. particularly pathetic. *

Quick question... Do you find gay couples obnoxious?
		
Click to expand...

Again with *this * are you addressing me?  Because if you are you are *totally *misreading my posts - whether that is deliberate or not I do not know - but there is nothing at all in what I have said that suggests I am.  

On the contrary - with the law now permitting churches to hold same-sex marriages my church GA has had the debate - as clearly to some Christians this is difficult - not gay partnerships - but gay marriage in a church.  And our GA has decided that in principle we are supportive of same-sex marriage in our churches,  but have left it to each congregation to decide whether or not they wish to permit same-sex marriages in their own church.  My own church has not yet had that debate - but I belief - and hope - that we will agree to it.  But it is not up to me - I can only make the case.

Please try and remove your 'anti-religion all religions are the same' blinkers - we are not all the same.

Back to our theoretical band booking - since when was 'satanic' necessarily purveying 'hate and intolerance'.  If however I accept that it might be, then if their songs contain lyrics that would be offensive to Christian values should I be breaking the law to refuse the band a booking.

And so from what I have said it should be very obvious to you that the quick answer to your quick question is NO!!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This is actually the point of my original post.  If the order was being placed by a 'straight' person they would have made the same decision and refused to decorate the cake with the specific message.

And so if I refuse a metal band a booking of our church hall because I don't like their message why would I similarly not be subject to the same court ruling.  Or a band promoting white supremacist views.

Or if an artist turns down a commission to paint a picture portraying gay male sex - where does that artist stand?
		
Click to expand...

This was indeed the crux of the issue before the court and we know how they found.

Once again, your metal band analogy is irrelevant as being a metal head is not a protected characteristic.

For the artist one I'd say he could argue he doesn't want to depict sex but if he'd previously accepted a commission to depict straight sex then he would be discriminating to refuse a similar commission from a gay couple.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 25, 2016)

Having had a little google. The report seems to suggest that the judges issue with it wasn't the message as such. More that the baker claimed making it would show he was prom gay message. 

This is just makes it more murky for me. how can the judge truly have an understanding if the bakers feelings? They're an opinion, and so not tangeable. 

If hes he's made cakes for the guy before then he clearly has no issue with him and as the guy was a very public pro gay marriage campaigner the baker clearly knew he was gay. So he's showed no prior descrimiantion. 

Imo, it's a bit of a non case. I don't see why the uproar. And think it was done more for publicity than anything else and the baker has been made a scapegoat. 

It appears to me the baker accepts gay marriage but doesn't wish to promote it. IMO that is his right.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 25, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			This was indeed the crux of the issue before the court and we know how they found.

Once again, your metal band analogy is irrelevant as being a metal head is not a protected characteristic.

For the artist one I'd say he could argue he doesn't want to depict sex but if he'd previously accepted a commission to depict straight sex then he would be discriminating to refuse a similar commission from a gay couple.
		
Click to expand...

So a metal band singing gay songs? 

And so an artist would *have* to accept a commission to paint gay sex if he'd ever painted a picture portraying heterosexual sex?  That's what you are saying. And that is nonsense surely.  Because if he declined he'd be breaking the law. Surely he can paint whatever he wants or doesn't want as the case may be.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So a metal band singing gay songs? 

And so an artist would *have* to accept a commission to paint gay sex if he'd ever painted a picture portraying heterosexual sex?  That's what you are saying. And that is nonsense surely.  Because if he declined he'd be breaking the law. Surely he can paint whatever he wants or doesn't want as the case may be.
		
Click to expand...

You just keep trying to think up spurious examples for what is actually a very straightforward situation. If you are running a business you may not legally discriminate against gay people. The nature of that business is irrelevant.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 25, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			You just keep trying to think up spurious examples for what is actually a very straightforward situation. If you are running a business you may not legally discriminate against gay people. The nature of that business is irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

He didn't discriminate against a person. He did so against a belief. 

Totally different IMO. This isn't some skin head down football hooligan down the pub saying "it ain't right mate". It's someone who has been taught by their religion that homosexuality is a sin. He is allowed to practice his religion, so do be charged because of it is IMO ridiculous.


----------



## IanG (Oct 25, 2016)

Genuine question for someone with legal understanding.  Would the judge's decision in law have been the same if the person commissioning that same cake had not been gay?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

IanG said:



			Genuine question for someone with legal understanding.  Would the judge's decision in law have been the same if the person commissioning that same cake had not been gay?
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - I did raise that question earlier but didn't get an answer.

And @FD - I'm really not thinking up spurious examples to justify the action of the bakers - or indeed condemn the actions - I am just trying to understand what the ruling means.  

Because from what you say the ruling would equally apply to an artist refusing to paint homosexual sex when he has previously painted heterosexual sex (or indeed a photographer taking a photograph). And he might decline the commission on any number of grounds - one of which might be that he simply doesn't really like the idea.  But the implication of the ruling seems to be that he'd either *have* to accept the commission, or be guilty of discrimination and hence breaking the law.  And that is just daft.

And if I let our hall to the weekly film club, would I be guilty of discrimination if I refused to let it to a gay group wishing to show a gay porn move?  I guess I would - because I'd not want to have *any* porn movie shown in our hall.  In which case I'd probably have to just cancel the booking of the weekly film club.  

Slightly extreme example perhaps - but stretch the scenario and see if the logic continues to work.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Again with *this * are you addressing me?  Because if you are you are *totally *misreading my posts - whether that is deliberate or not I do not know - but there is nothing at all in what I have said that suggests I am.  

On the contrary - with the law now permitting churches to hold same-sex marriages my church GA has had the debate - as clearly to some Christians this is difficult - not gay partnerships - but gay marriage in a church.  And our GA has decided that in principle we are supportive of same-sex marriage in our churches,  but have left it to each congregation to decide whether or not they wish to permit same-sex marriages in their own church.  My own church has not yet had that debate - but I belief - and hope - that we will agree to it.  But it is not up to me - I can only make the case.

Please try and remove your 'anti-religion all religions are the same' blinkers - we are not all the same.

Back to our theoretical band booking - since when was 'satanic' necessarily purveying 'hate and intolerance'.  If however I accept that it might be, then if their songs contain lyrics that would be offensive to Christian values should I be breaking the law to refuse the band a booking.

And so from what I have said it should be very obvious to you that the quick answer to your quick question is NO!!
		
Click to expand...

If you are as tolerant as you state, then why does every one of your comparisons seem to equate Gay Marriage to something awful? Satanic metal bands, Far Right groups etc. Come up with a comparison that does the debate justice. Something loving, joyful and celebratory. If you can't, then you probably have your answer.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed - I did raise that question earlier but didn't get an answer.

And @FD - I'm really not thinking up spurious examples to justify the action of the bakers - or indeed condemn the actions - I am just trying to understand what the ruling means.  

Because from what you say the ruling would equally apply to an artist refusing to paint homosexual sex when he has previously painted heterosexual sex (or indeed a photographer taking a photograph). And he might decline the commission on any number of grounds - one of which might be that he simply doesn't really like the idea.  But the implication of the ruling seems to be that he'd either *have* to accept the commission, or be guilty of discrimination and hence breaking the law.  And that is just daft.

And if I let our hall to the weekly film club, would I be guilty of discrimination if I refused to let it to a gay group wishing to show a gay porn move?  I guess I would - because I'd not want to have *any* porn movie shown in our hall.  In which case I'd probably have to just cancel the booking of the weekly film club.  

Slightly extreme example perhaps - but stretch the scenario and see if the logic continues to work.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, of your 2 examples. The artist would have every right to refuse a commission, unless it was because he didn't tolerate gay sex. 

If you refused to show gay porn, but allowed straight porn, then you'd be in the wrong. 
Very strange examples though.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 26, 2016)

I am with the defence on this one. IF the baker had refused to sell the customer a chocolate eclair because he was gay, this would have been completely unacceptable and illegal. He didn't. He refused to make him a product displaying a political message the baker did not subscribe to. It should be his right to refuse the business. This is not, in my view discrimination against gay people, it's a view against a political opinion in favour of something that, as I understand it, is not legal in that region.
If, as a previous poster asked, the customer was not gay but wanted the cake to promote gay marriage,  this case would never have got off the ground. In my view it was a ridiculous action to take and serves no-one as it is at the very least divisive and distressing.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 26, 2016)

I really don't like this case, for me the guy is described as a regular of the cake shop and a gay rights activist, to be a regular customer he must regularly get served in the shop so to me he hasn't been discriminated against for being gay as I can only assume he was gay last time he was served as well. 
The shop owner should have the right to refuse political statements they don't agree with or things they find offensive, whether or not they are right to find something offensive is down to personal opinion and that shouldn't be forced by law.

This feels to me like the black guy who calls racism whenever something he doesn't like happens.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

What part of being gay or messages of goodwill on a cake is offensive? The message was not promoting violence or was political or was offensive, the baker didn't agree with it, but he has no lawful reasons to refuse to do it.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 26, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			What part of being gay or messages of goodwill on a cake is offensive? The message was not promoting violence or was political or was offensive, the baker didn't agree with it, but he has no lawful reasons to refuse to do it.
		
Click to expand...

But he's a Cristian who has been taught homosexuality is a sin. So whilst being open enough to happily serve an openly gay man he obviously felt he didn't wish to make a product promoting it. 

Devils advocate, a baker in America has a police office father killed in the riots in America. Should he make a "Black lives matter" cake if requested?
or vice Versace a black baker asked to make a "blue lives matter" cake when his son was killed by a cop?

for me, this was a pr stunt by an activist who likely knew he'd be refused.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			If you are as tolerant as you state, then why does every one of your comparisons seem to equate Gay Marriage to something awful? Satanic metal bands, Far Right groups etc. Come up with a comparison that does the debate justice. Something loving, joyful and celebratory. If you can't, then you probably have your answer.
		
Click to expand...

I chose the examples because 1) the issue relates directly to the relationship between a supplier and the gay community and 2) because my church hires out it's facilities and we would reserve the right to choose who we hire them out to on the grounds that the activities, objectives or message of some potential hirers might not be at all consistent with our core beliefs and values - or not approved of by some of our congregation - and we are a totally democratic church.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			But he's a Cristian who has been taught homosexuality is a sin. So whilst being open enough to happily serve an openly gay man he obviously felt he didn't wish to make a product promoting it. 

Devils advocate, a baker in America has a police office father killed in the riots in America. Should he make a "Black lives matter" cake if requested?
or vice Versace a black baker asked to make a "blue lives matter" cake when his son was killed by a cop?

for me, this was a pr stunt by an activist who likely knew he'd be refused.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure we can all come up with scenario's that will test our resolve, under our current legislation this was wrong.
I did see an interview with Peter Tatchell who actually supported the Bakers, as the result of this case it could mean for example, that a Jewish printer could not refuse to print material containing material that denied the holocaust or a Muslim could be obliged to print material with a picture of Mohammed on.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 26, 2016)

Who is being portrayed as the 'victims' here? The law is pretty clear in terms of protection and in where the judgement lies yet so many people see the baker as the victim. Even some gay people, for example articles in various newspapers, feel the baker is the victim.

My daughter and her partner feel this case doesn't portray the gay community in a good light with a gay activist using the letter of law to bully the baker, and there are more important battles for gay people to fight.


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 26, 2016)

My God what is the world coming to.

The customer could have gone and found another bakery that would have happily put whatever he wanted on the cake.

He was probably angered by the bakers refusal and wanted to get even or saw an opportunity and took it instead of just going next door.


----------



## Papas1982 (Oct 26, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I'm sure we can all come up with scenario's that will test our resolve, under our current legislation this was wrong.
I did see an interview with Peter Tatchell who actually supported the Bakers, as the result of this case it could mean for example, that a Jewish printer could not refuse to print material containing material that denied the holocaust or a Muslim could be obliged to print material with a picture of Mohammed on.
		
Click to expand...

doesnt this baker live In the only part of the uk that doesn't recognise gay marriage? 
so in theory even his own council doesn't belive he was wrong. 

Re the scenarios that test his resolve. It wasn't meant as that, more how others would judge people in those cases.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 26, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			My God what is the world coming to.

The customer could have gone and found another bakery that would have happily put whatever he wanted on the cake.

He was probably angered by the bakers refusal and wanted to get even or saw an opportunity and took it instead of just going next door.
		
Click to expand...

And the pub that won't serve you? Go to another pub. The landlord who won't let his flat to you? Plenty of other flats out there. The employer who fires you over your sexuality? Get another job. Assaulted by someone who saw you kissing your partner? Don't flaunt it in public.

Fortunately plenty of people have refused to meekly accept discrimination and have stood up to it or we wouldn't have even a fraction of the rights we have today.


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2016)

IanG said:



			Genuine question for someone with legal understanding.  Would the judge's decision in law have been the same if the person commissioning that same cake had not been gay?
		
Click to expand...

To try and answer my own question a bit of reading suggests the result would have been the same, it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the customer in this case. The crux is that the baker was offering a service (baking cakes with messages on them ) and refused to make one on the basis of discrimination against a  protected characteristic namely sexual orientation which is illegal. 

I think it would be the same result if a printer for whatever reason refused to print a poster with the slogan 'support black workers' on it. 

Seems clearer to me now. ( maybe that is just me )


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 26, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			And the pub that won't serve you? Go to another pub. The landlord who won't let his flat to you? Plenty of other flats out there. The employer who fires you over your sexuality? Get another job. Assaulted by someone who saw you kissing your partner? Don't flaunt it in public.

Fortunately plenty of people have refused to meekly accept discrimination and have stood up to it or we wouldn't have even a fraction of the rights we have today.
		
Click to expand...

He wasn't refused as such for buying a cake or a pint. It was the messaging at odds with their beliefs that went above and beyond what they were prepared to do.

In your example I would expect a Jewish pub to sell me a guinness but I should not be offended if they didn't put a swastika on top instead of a shamrock to celebrate Hitler's birthday.

Common sense and tolerance needed on ALL sides.


----------



## IanM (Oct 26, 2016)

Funny one this... someone refused to sell me something, I'd take my money elsewhere. But if someone does so discriminating against my beliefs or as person, I'd take issue as these folk did - would I take legal action?  No idea, never been in that situation.  Where does one person's rights/belief overrule another's?  Good luck ruling on that.

In this case I guess the shop sells cakes...and they'll write whatever you like on it (generally) until now.... it's not like expecting a Vegan Restaurant to sell steak... so result not that surprising.

Generally, Why can't folk live and let live?  ... it's a bloody slogan on a cake... he wasn't asking you to marry him!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 26, 2016)

So the moral of the story is to only offer plain cakes, no text, no pictures on the surface. You just need to be consistent and then no one has an argument.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 26, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			So the moral of the story is to only offer plain cakes, no text, no pictures on the surface. You just need to be consistent and then no one has an argument.
		
Click to expand...

Or in fact the moral of the story is not to discriminate based on your beliefs. You're welcome to believe what you want, but the second you discriminate based on that, you're in the wrong.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 26, 2016)

What if it was the other way around what if it was a gay baker refusing to bake a cake saying support heterosexual marriage.

On a similar note I read that a straight couple recently came over to the island for a civil ceremony as no council in the UK will give these to straight couples, should they have just sued the council.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 26, 2016)

IanM said:



			Funny one this... someone refused to sell me something, I'd take my money elsewhere. But if someone does so discriminating against my beliefs or as person, I'd take issue as these folk did - would I take legal action?  No idea, never been in that situation.  Where does one person's rights/belief overrule another's?  Good luck ruling on that.

In this case I guess the shop sells cakes...and they'll write whatever you like on it (generally) until now.... it's not like expecting a Vegan Restaurant to sell steak... so result not that surprising.

Generally, Why can't folk live and let live?  ... it's a bloody slogan on a cake... he wasn't asking you to marry him!
		
Click to expand...

Did they discriminate against the couple or the slogan and are they both protected?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 26, 2016)

freddielong said:



			What if it was the other way around what if it was a gay baker refusing to bake a cake saying support heterosexual marriage.

On a similar note I read that a straight couple recently came over to the island for a civil ceremony as no council in the UK will give these to straight couples, should they have just sued the council.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah because gay people are notorious for discriminating against straight people getting married. At least you didn't bring hitler into it.

Can we please stop the ridiculous examples.

There is legal action ongoing to extend civil partnerships to straight people and several gay rights organisations are active in that campaign.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 26, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Or in fact the moral of the story is not to discriminate based on your beliefs. You're welcome to believe what you want, but the second you discriminate based on that, you're in the wrong.
		
Click to expand...

 
Yes, perhaps using the word moral was the wrong move. I have mixed feelings about this. Discrimination is wrong but pushing a button to prove a point is also unecessary. Asking for a political statement on a cake from a known, this is N.Ireland remember, christian bakery is like prodding a wound. They went looking for trouble and found it. Big surprise. I don't know that anyone comes out of this with any credit. There are bigger and more important cases of discrimination than this. When Peter Tatchell doesn't support you then you know it's the wrong argument to pick.


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 26, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yeah because gay people are notorious for discriminating against straight people getting married. At least you didn't bring hitler into it.

Can we please stop the ridiculous examples.

There is legal action ongoing to extend civil partnerships to straight people and several gay rights organisations are active in that campaign.
		
Click to expand...

The examples are not ridiculous. To the baker what he was asked to write may have been just as offensive to him than a reference of Hitler to a Jew would be. 

I would have no problem if someone had said to me sorry mate but because of our beliefs we would rather not write that on a cake. I would have went next door it's as simple as that.

Need to consider everybody's beleiefs not just our own.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 26, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			The examples are not ridiculous. To the baker what he was asked to write may have been just as offensive to him than a reference of Hitler to a Jew would be. 

I would have no problem if someone had said to me sorry mate but because of our beliefs we would rather not write that on a cake. I would have went next door it's as simple as that.

Need to consider everybody's beleiefs not just our own.
		
Click to expand...

Just to confirm, a) being homosexual isn't a belief, and b) I genuinly cannot believe you've seriously compared it to Hitler/Jews. You've officially lost this battle I think.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			The examples are not ridiculous. To the baker what he was asked to write may have been just as offensive to him than a reference of Hitler to a Jew would be. 

I would have no problem if someone had said to me sorry mate but because of our beliefs we would rather not write that on a cake. I would have went next door it's as simple as that.

Need to consider everybody's beleiefs not just our own.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish, what part of the baker losing the case and the appeal do you not accept. 

If you offer a service you offer it to all, they took the order for the cake, the man who ordered the cake left happy, 2 days later they phone him up and say they can no longer do the cake as the message is against their beliefs.

He didn't go looking for trouble, he didn't single them out.

By the way, comparing it to Hilter and Jews is deeply offensive.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 26, 2016)

Sawtooth hasn't compared gays to Hitler turn down your am I offended radar he used it as a marker as something pretty much everyone is offended by never was there a comparison.


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 26, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Just to confirm, a) being homosexual isn't a belief, and b) I genuinly cannot believe you've seriously compared it to Hitler/Jews. You've officially lost this battle I think.
		
Click to expand...

You're being pedantic.


----------



## User62651 (Oct 26, 2016)

In my view the nuts and bolts of this case does  come down to bias based on sexual orientation which is wrong and the  court made the correct call. That may upset some hardline religious organisations particularly on the unionist side it seems from reading the article quotes but peoples rights and equality under law must come before old fashioned perhaps entrenched and intolerant religious views that are thankfully dying out over time.


----------



## Qwerty (Oct 26, 2016)

I haven't read the whole thread and it doesn't appear in the link..Do we know what was requested message was ?


----------



## JT77 (Oct 26, 2016)

Support gay marriage was the slogan with a pic of Bert and Ernie


----------



## ger147 (Oct 26, 2016)

Qwerty said:



			I haven't read the whole thread and it doesn't appear in the link..Do we know what was requested message was ?
		
Click to expand...

Support Gay Marriage


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Sawtooth hasn't compared gays to Hitler turn down your am I offended radar he used it as a marker as something pretty much everyone is offended by never was there a comparison.
		
Click to expand...

Were did I say he compared Hitler to gays? He was comparing the 2 situations by going completely extreme with his example. Nothing to do with an offended radar, just common decency.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 26, 2016)

Guys n gals , can we stop the extreme examples please.
Thanks


----------



## Farmergeddon (Oct 26, 2016)

So to precise:- two bakers welcome gays in to their shop and bake cakes for them,  then they are asked to put a message on a cake that is a concept even their own government dosent agree with, and refuse, They are sued for a hate crime and even though the complainants main supporter disagrees with the action they are found against and have to pay costs..  Is that right so far?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			So to precise:- two bakers welcome gays in to their shop and bake cakes for them,  then they are asked to put a message on a cake that is a concept even their own government dosent agree with, and refuse, They are sued for a hate crime and even though the complainants main supporter disagrees with the action they are found against and have to pay costs..  Is that right so far?
		
Click to expand...

Not sued by anyone, taken to court by the NI Equality Commission and found guilty of discrimination, the cake order with pictures and words accepted at the same time.
It was one man who ordered the cake.
They have to pay the cost of the appeal as they lost, that they decided to action.
Not sure why you'd call it a hate crime.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

I do not give a tuppeny crap what adults do in private, but if i were asked to write this slogan they would be told no.

Being forced to write something in any form, cakes included that you totally oppose is not something i support

Compromise would be make them a cake with 

WE DO NOT 

SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

and let them eat the first 3 words first..


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 26, 2016)

Could these bakers find themselves in hot water again if they refused to make a cake with a pro abortion message on it?


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2016)

garyinderry said:



			Could these bakers find themselves in hot water again if they refused to make a cake with a pro abortion message on it?
		
Click to expand...

No as being pro-life  supporter is not a 'protected characteristic '

List here

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

If i walk into callaway and ask them to produce a golf shaft with Support Taylor Made golf, would they have to do it?


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

The point I got from it was: 

You can be Christian, you can be a baker, by default you are a Christian Baker... but you can't run a business offering bakery goods and services that are aligned solely with the values and beliefs of a Christian

Seems pretty simple


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

garyinderry said:



			Could these bakers find themselves in hot water again if they refused to make a cake with a pro abortion message on it?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think so mate, it's not one of the protective characteristics in The Equality Act.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			I do not give a tuppeny crap what adults do in private, but if i were asked to write this slogan they would be told no.

Being forced to write something in any form, cakes included that you totally oppose is not something i support

Compromise would be make them a cake with 

WE DO NOT 

SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

and let them eat the first 3 words first..
		
Click to expand...

So I guess you wouldn't of accepted the order in the first place instead of insulting him.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			The point I got from it was: 

You can be Christian, you can be a baker, by default you are a Christian Baker... but you can't run a business offering bakery goods and services that are aligned solely with the values and beliefs of a Christian

Seems pretty simple
		
Click to expand...


You can be Muslim, you can be a butcher, you can offer services that are aligned solely with the values and beliefs of a Muslim
Halal Butcher


----------



## Qwerty (Oct 26, 2016)

ger147 said:



			Support Gay Marriage
		
Click to expand...


Seems a reasonable request but if the bakers saw it as a stitch up and dug their heels in then I'd say 'Fair enough' if they didn't see it as a stitch up they shouldn't of even thought about it and just made the cake.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 26, 2016)

If nothing else this thread shows we have a long way to go before gay people can expect to be treated equally. Meantime, thanks to activists over the years, we are at least equal in law and should damn well stand up for our rights where we can!


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			If nothing else this thread shows we have a long way to go before gay people can expect to be treated equally. Meantime, thanks to activists over the years, we are at least equal in law and should damn well stand up for our rights where we can!
		
Click to expand...

I am treating them equally if there is something i do not like i do not write stuff that says i support it

I would equally not make a cake that says Support animal testing as i do not believe in that either

If your cake has a message and you do not support the message you should be free to decline, that is the bigger point, what gays do or do not do is their business, but asking people to put in writing messages they oppose should not be something anyone is forced to do.

Hence equality


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			If nothing else this thread shows we have a long way to go before gay people can expect to be treated equally. Meantime, thanks to activists over the years, we are at least equal in law and should damn well stand up for our rights where we can!
		
Click to expand...

:thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			If nothing else this thread shows we have a long way to go before gay people can expect to be treated equally. Meantime, thanks to activists over the years, we are at least equal in law and should damn well stand up for our rights where we can!
		
Click to expand...

Actually I think the thread has been reasonable and hasn't specifically picked out the gay community.  I certainly hope what I have posted in no way suggests that.  My thoughts are more on an individuals freedom to not write something they don't believe in or that might offend others.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

If it just said Support Marriage and the bakers were divorced and thought Marriage to be an insane and outdated concept would they be allowed to decline?

*Forcing a written statement out of people, which is what this is, is wrong, wrong and wrong again*

The customers should have said, respect your opinion (We are allowed different opinions) and gone somewhere else


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			You can be Muslim, you can be a butcher, you can offer services that are aligned solely with the values and beliefs of a Muslim
Halal Butcher
		
Click to expand...

Halal meat is part of his product range not a service. That butcher possibly doesn't stock other types of meat

The baker wasn't being asked to sell a product they didn't offer (a cake with a message)


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			Halal meat is part of his product range not a service. That butcher possibly doesn't stock other types of meat

The baker wasn't being asked to sell a product they didn't offer (a cake with a message)
		
Click to expand...

The service is ensuring the meat is produced to comply with their beliefs and it is no different.

A faith is dictating what products are produced and how in the case of the butcher
A faith is dictating what products are produced and how in the case of the baker

In the first example, i cannot demand non halal as they will not produce this due to faith
In the second example, their faith and beliefs are ignored

It is inconsistent and forcing statements on people, WRITTEN STATEMENTS is something hostages have to do!.. its just wrong


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			I am treating them equally if there is something i do not like i do not write stuff that says i support it

I would equally not make a cake that says Support animal testing as i do not believe in that either

If your cake has a message and you do not support the message you should be free to decline, that is the bigger point, what gays do or do not do is their business, but asking people to put in writing messages they oppose should not be something anyone is forced to do.

Hence equality
		
Click to expand...

Equality legislation as far as I understand it singles out a number of 'protected characteristics' upon which businesses offering services cannot discriminate. They are in that sense 'protected'  above and beyond individuals beliefs and opinions. 

I think my example in a previous post about a printer not being allowed to legally refuse to print a poster with 'support black workers' on it makes the case. Even if the printer believes black workers should not be supported he is not allowed to discriminate against a protected characteristic like that.


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			I am treating them equally* if there is something i do not like i do not write stuff that says i support it*

I would equally not make a cake that says Support animal testing as i do not believe in that either

If your cake has a message and you do not support the message you should be free to decline, that is the bigger point, what gays do or do not do is their business, but asking people to put in writing messages they oppose should not be something anyone is forced to do.

Hence equality
		
Click to expand...

But the requested message didn't say 'xyz christian bakers support gay marriage' 

They would have very good grounds to refuse to put that on a cake


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			If it just said Support Marriage and the bakers were divorced and thought Marriage to be an insane and outdated concept would they be allowed to decline?

*Forcing a written statement out of people, which is what this is, is wrong, wrong and wrong again*

The customers should have said, respect your opinion (We are allowed different opinions) and gone somewhere else
		
Click to expand...

They accepted the order, words and everything.

2 days later phoned him up, maybe profit came before belief initially,


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

I get what you are saying but 

He is being asked to SUPPORT this group, despite not supporting it

He cannot discriminate against people, i.e. he did not refuse to make cakes for gays as they were gay, he refused to produce a statement that supported something he did not agree with.

The legislation has to have a limit, he has a gay customer buy a cake every day, one day he is asked to put a slogan on a cake he disagrees with by that gay customer, he is not discriminating against gays, he is simply not SUPPORTING their cause.

If the law says different, i would ignore the law as and when i felt appropriate as being forced to write anything that you do not believe should never happen

I understand if it said XYZ bakers support, there is no case as that is totally different

But there is an obvious implication that they DO when you open a cake known to be from a company that says SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, when the owners of that business clearly do not.

A reasonable reaction would be fair enough and get it elsewhere, my view wont change.

BTW i would make the cake, but i believe the bakers should have the right not to produce a cake with a slogan they oppose regardless of what it is


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

Was not aware *they had accepted the order with words etc *
That being the case they should have made the cake, 100% agree, unless it was not a principal in the business who accepted the order

Not living in the UK so just joined the end of the thread


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Was not aware *they had accepted the order with words etc *
That being the case they should have made the cake, 100% agree, unless it was not a principal in the business who accepted the order

Not living in the UK so just joined the end of the thread
		
Click to expand...

It was one of the couple who took the initial order.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Oct 26, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			It was one of the couple who took the initial order.
		
Click to expand...

So zero grounds to refuse then


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall.  And why would I have to consider doing that?  

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation.  I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law?  I guess I would be.

Actually what would happen is that our administrator, being sensitive to potential issues around taking any booking, would contact the elders and ask for their advise - and we would in almost all cases say OK.  And we'd take the flak if any came out of a booking.  So we'd say OK to Stonewall -= as we are like that


----------



## sawtooth (Oct 26, 2016)

Would it have been legal if they advertised in the window beforehand that they will refuse to print messages that are in anyway, political, obscene, blasphemous, pornographic and offensive to others?

That way you know the score before you go in and it's fair and equal to all. That's what most people want equal treatment but not special treatment.


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall.  And why would I have to consider doing that?  

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation.  I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law?  I guess I would be.
		
Click to expand...

I don't fully understand the congregations role in the decision in the example of who to rent the hall/rooms to

Are the congregation also holding roles as c0-owners/shareholders/business partners (and if so why would you describe them as the congregation and not as business partners or building owners?)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Would it have been legal if they advertised in the window beforehand that they will refuse to print messages that are in anyway, political, obscene, blasphemous, pornographic and offensive to others?

That way you know the score before you go in and it's fair and equal to all. That's what most people want equal treatment but not special treatment.
		
Click to expand...

Wonder if they stock same-sex couple hand-in-hand cake decorations.


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall.  And why would I have to consider doing that?  

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation.  I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law?  I guess I would be.
		
Click to expand...


I think you are right, you would be.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Would it have been legal if they advertised in the window beforehand that they will refuse to print messages that are in anyway, political, obscene, blasphemous, pornographic and offensive to others?

That way you know the score before you go in and it's fair and equal to all. That's what most people want equal treatment but not special treatment.
		
Click to expand...

I think the only part of your advert that would be dodgy is "offensive to others" probably impossible to actually define that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			I don't fully understand the congregations role in the decision in the example of who to rent the hall/rooms to

Are the congregation also holding roles as c0-owners/shareholders/business partners (and if so why would you describe them as the congregation and not as business partners or building owners?)
		
Click to expand...

The church building is owned by the United Reformed Church and not by the congregation.  The elders are in effect the management board for the church and as well as church operational and maintenance matters we also consider matters of faith and how we reconcile our beliefs and what we are taught with the practicalities and legal requirements of the 21st Century.   And as we are a charity the elders are also the trustees of the charity.

The elders are nominated for election by the congregation, and in a ballot are elected by the congregation.  For anything or any change of significance we (the elders) seek advice from our local synod (regional administrative organisation) and from what is agreed at the URC General Assembly.  We then agree our recommendation and put that to all members of the congregation for debate and to the vote. If the congregation votes the elders recommendation down, then we have to think again.

And this is what is going to happen with same-sex marriage.  The GA has said that the church as a whole is agreeable to same-sex marriages being held in URC churches - but that each congregation can decide themselves whether they wish to approve that for their own church.  We have yet to have that debate.  I will be supporting the proposal.  I cannot at the moment say for certain what the elders as a body will propose - but as there are only 12 of us and I know them all well - I think we will propose to the congregation that same-sex marriages can be held in our church.  It is then up to the congregation - guided in their deliberations as required by our minister.

And so as far as hiring the rooms and to who - well the elders might have to make a decision if the potential hirer is contentious - and we might have to say that it is *so* contentious that we have to put it to the congregation. 

Now that is how it would work, if it had to.  But in general we are trusted by the congregation to make the correct decisions on their behalf - and so such a decision would most probably never have to go further than the elders.  If we make 'wrong' decisions then as I only serve for a 3 year period and am then required to be re-nominated and then elected - I can be given the boot by the congregation if they don't like me and what I stand for.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 26, 2016)

Fippin eck its kicked off on this one ant it.  

Reminds me me of the time a anti road group was once asked, how would you feel if the road was going through a mink farm. you save the minks but have a road.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The church building is owned by the United Reformed Church and not by the congregation.  The elders are in effect the management board for the church and as well as church operational and maintenance matters we also consider matters of faith and how we reconcile our beliefs and what we are taught with the practicalities and legal requirements of the 21st Century.   

The elders are nominated for election by the congregation, and in a ballot are elected by the congregation.  For anything or any change of significance we (the elders) seek advice from our local synod (regional administrative organisation) and from what is agreed at the URC General Assembly.  We then agree our recommendation and put that to all members of the congregation for debate and to the vote. If the congregation votes the elders recommendation down, then we have to think again.

And this is what is going to happen with same-sex marriage.  The GA has said that the church as a whole is agreeable to same-sex marriages being held in URC churches - but that each congregation can decide themselves whether they wish to approve that for their own church.  We have yet to have that debate.  I will be supporting the proposal.  I cannot at the moment say for certain what the elders as a body will propose - but as there are only 12 of us and I know them all well - I think we will propose to the congregation that same-sex marriages can be held in our church.  It is then up to the congregation - guided in their deliberations as required by our minister.

And so as far as hiring the rooms and to who - well the elders might have to make a decision if the potential hirer is contentious - and we might have to say that it is *so* contentious that we have to put it to the congregation. 

Now that is how it would work, if it had to.  But in general we are trusted by the congregation to make the correct decisions on their behalf - and so such a decision would most probably never have to go further than the elders.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers

So is the natural progression that if the congregation don't approve of actually holding same sex marriages in the church, that then means the hall cant be hired out to someone who is gay and does support same sex marriage_ if_ the purpose of the rental period is to show support for same sex marriages, because others may mistakenly think this 'cause' has the support of the church when it actually doesn't?


----------



## woody69 (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall.  And why would I have to consider doing that?  

*The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is* - and I have a duty to the whole congregation.  I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law?  I guess I would be.

Actually what would happen is that our administrator, being sensitive to potential issues around taking any booking, would contact the elders and ask for their advise - and we would in almost all cases say OK.  And we'd take the flak if any came out of a booking.  So we'd say OK to Stonewall -= as we are like that 

Click to expand...

People's attitudes don't change from pandering to them. Take the booking and invite them to the meeting. They might work out they are simply dealing with another human.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 26, 2016)

My father in law is homophobic. My cousin is gay. They met once and my f-i-l came away saying what a nice bloke he was, he is as well. A while later it came up that my cousin was gay. It was like an Alf Garnett moment. The conflict, like the bloke, he is gay, don't like gay people. Very funny to watch him unravel. He still doesn't quite believe he is gay, "because he seemed such a nice bloke". He is a nice bloke I tell him but his brain conflicts this information. 

My point to this is some peoples views are entrenched and no matter who they meet they will not budge. My f-i-l will die and his views will go with him. His views are not uncommon in his generation but it does not make him or them right. We argue about it but he wont change, neither will I stop challenging his Garnett like rants. The next generation will have fewer hang ups and so on and so on. I'm in my mid 40's and my generation couldn't care less about colour, sexuality etc. We are getting there.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			Cheers

So is the natural progression that if the congregation don't approve of actually holding same sex marriages in the church, that then means the hall cant be hired out to someone who is gay and does support same sex marriage_ if_ the purpose of the rental period is to show support for same sex marriages, because others may mistakenly think this 'cause' has the support of the church when it actually doesn't?
		
Click to expand...

No - that doesn't follow.  For the congregation to approve *holding* same-sex marriages in a church is actually a very big thing - and that's why it is so contentious an issue across many denominations and why we as a congregation have been given the authority to decide ourselves.  The top level approval has been given and if we want to follow that guidance that is up to us.  

If we chose *not *to approve of it there is nothing stopping a group hiring our hall to promote it - just that at the current point in time the congregation has specifically chosen to not accept requests for same-sex marriage in our church.  Of course as mentioned this request might have to come to the Elders for their approval as it would clearly be sensitive.   But of course we could give approval next month or next year if peoples minds has changed and support seems to be there.  And part of that change process might well be hosting meetings of pro same-sex marriage groups that members of the congregation might attend to understand better and come to an acceptance.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

woody69 said:



			People's attitudes don't change from pandering to them. Take the booking and invite them to the meeting. They might work out they are simply dealing with another human.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed...


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No - that doesn't follow.  For the congregation to approve *holding* same-sex marriages in a church is actually a very big thing - and that's why it is so contentious an issue across many denominations and why we as a congregation have been given the authority to decide ourselves.  The top level approval has been given and if we want to follow that guidance that is up to us.  

_*If we chose not to approve of it there is nothing stopping a group hiring our hall to promote it - *_just that at the current point in time the congregation has specifically chosen to not accept requests for same-sex marriage in our church.  Of course as mentioned this request might have to come to the Elders for their approval as it would clearly be sensitive.   But of course we could give approval next month or next year if peoples minds has changed and support seems to be there.  And part of that change process might well be hosting meetings of pro same-sex marriage groups that members of the congregation might attend to understand better and come to an acceptance.
		
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry I thought I was getting a handle on their point of view

Ok so still confused. If not related and nothing stopping you, why would the above current stance on holding same sex marriages mean you'd feel you might have to turn down a request for a hall booking from Stonewall ( I googled them as no idea who they were)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			Oops, sorry I thought I was getting a handle on their point of view

Ok so still confused. If not related and nothing stopping you, why would the above current stance on holding same sex marriages mean you'd feel you might have to turn down a request for a hall booking from Stonewall ( I googled them as no idea who they were)
		
Click to expand...

I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves.  Remember that we are a very democratic church.  You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over... 

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves.  Remember that we are a very democratic church.  You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over... 

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
		
Click to expand...

Do you really need to ask though SILH? You've already established you would be breaking the law if you denied them, and I can't believe any senior person would recommend that...


----------



## Slab (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) *might decide that it would not be appropriate* until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves.  Remember that we are a very democratic church.  You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over... 

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
		
Click to expand...

I'm still stuck on the bold bit, if the two aren't linked/dependent in some way why might it not be appropriate to rent them the hall until a vote is taken on holding same sex marriage 

The congregation would be consulted on the marriage aspect not who can hire the hall (unless the hiring of the hall is perceived as an endorsement of the marriage by elders, in which case a circular to the congregation explaining that the two are not related should suffice)


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 26, 2016)

Difficult moral case. 

I am reminded that it is never a good idea to piss off the person who is cooking for you.
You just might find some 'unwanted' ingredients in the mix.

Lovely story up here a wee while ago about the specially made Rangers birthday cake.
When you cut through the blue icing it was green and white inside.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 26, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			My father in law is homophobic. My cousin is gay. They met once and my f-i-l came away saying what a nice bloke he was, he is as well. A while later it came up that my cousin was gay. It was like an Alf Garnett moment. The conflict, like the bloke, he is gay, don't like gay people. Very funny to watch him unravel. He still doesn't quite believe he is gay, "because he seemed such a nice bloke". He is a nice bloke I tell him but his brain conflicts this information. 

*My point to this is some peoples views are entrenched and no matter who they meet they will not budge. *My f-i-l will die and his views will go with him. His views are not uncommon in his generation but it does not make him or them right. We argue about it but he wont change, neither will I stop challenging his Garnett like rants. The next generation will have fewer hang ups and so on and so on. I'm in my mid 40's and my generation couldn't care less about colour, sexuality etc. We are getting there.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say about me mum, her views are borne of what she was " taught" (and I use the term very loosely )from the forties. It was an education that also taught that your sister had to go and live with your auntie coz she were pregnant, and it brought shame upon the familyWhat I will say about gays, religion, sex, race etc is the world is big enough for them all. . It seems to me that one culture entered another's space and no one comes out of this happy.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 26, 2016)

In more serious news, only 1 culture appears to have shown a lack of tolerance and compassion.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves.  Remember that we are a very democratic church.  You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over... 

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
		
Click to expand...

It might also be worth checking what the law is in regards a charitable organisation discriminating between different groups using your building. I can't remember the legality of it as it was quite a few years ago when I came across something similar.... you might actually be endangering your charitable status, which could have a huge impact nationally for the United Reform church. Can of worms??


----------



## SaintHacker (Oct 26, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Lovely story up here a wee while ago about the specially made Rangers birthday cake.
When you cut through the blue icing it was green and white inside.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant!:rofl:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Do you really need to ask though SILH? You've already established you would be breaking the law if you denied them, and I can't believe any senior person would recommend that...
		
Click to expand...

Unlikely as it is - such as Stonewall asking to hire our hall might well put us in a difficult position.  And I actually don't know 100% what our response would be given the sensitivity of same-sex marriage and the perception hiring out to Stonewall would give to the congregation.  I am pretty sure we would hire it out - but I actually don't know.  It's our hall and we should be able to hire it out or not to whoever we wish.  The two things are separate but linked because we haven't yet made our decision on same-sex marriages being conducted in our church.  And therein seems to be the issue.

Halloween is upon us soon.  Now should we hire out our hall for a Halloween party?

As it happens in the URC we don't have any one person more senior than any other.  And the minister is actually formally subordinate to the congregation.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 26, 2016)

Slab said:



			I'm still stuck on the bold bit, if the two aren't linked/dependent in some way why might it not be appropriate to rent them the hall until a vote is taken on holding same sex marriage 

The congregation would be consulted on the marriage aspect not who can hire the hall (*unless the hiring of the hall is perceived as an endorsement of the marriage by elders *, in which case a circular to the congregation explaining that the two are not related should suffice
		
Click to expand...

*This *is the issue.  I hope that the forumers here can understand that gay marriage in our church is actually a very difficult thing to accept for some of our older church members especially.  And as such it is a sensitive issue that we must handle carefully if we are going to get acceptance and approval.  Being forced by law to rent our hall or rooms to a gay organisation does not make things any easier.  But as previously said - I think we'd just do it and let the congregation know that it is no way connected with - or pre-judges - the marriage decision we have to make.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 26, 2016)

Much as I abhor discrimination - of almost any kind - I don't believe this was actually a case of discrimination! I'm sure they would have rejected the order in exactly the same way if it had been from a 'straight' customer also!

I'd also be interested to know whether, especially if the Bakers hadn't been a Company, the ruling would have been the same. I suspect there would have been an argument, under ECHR article 13, that requiring the bakers to produce the cake breached their Human Rights! The case may actually end up heading in that direction!

Sir Declan Morgan actually stated â€œThe supplier may provide the particular service to* all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds *. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.â€


----------



## Sweep (Oct 27, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Just to confirm, a) being homosexual isn't a belief
		
Click to expand...

No but believing in gay marriage is. The baker isn't refusing to supply a person because he or she is gay.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 27, 2016)

Being gay is a protected characteristic, a political view on gay rights is not.
This is the crux of the matter.
If you accept that the order was refused because of the message (a view on gay rights) and not because the person ordering it was gay then the case against the baker has no basis.


----------



## Slab (Oct 10, 2018)

Can you believe that 4 years on from when it happend and the supreme court issued their ruling today 

And Sweep's post (above) nailed it

All Hail Judge Sweep


----------



## rksquire (Oct 10, 2018)

Unfortunately this all got swept away by the Christian Institute and the Equalities Commission.  This judgement is brilliantly simple imho - A heterosexual man wanting to buy the same cake would also not have had the order fulfilled, therefore it was never about the sexual orientation of the individual and always about the message.  Unfortunately the message is a raw topic in Northern Ireland but it is not illegal to either be in favor of it or against it.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 10, 2018)

The legal teams will be loving this. Huge fees allround.


----------



## User 99 (Oct 10, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The legal teams will be loving this. Huge fees allround.
		
Click to expand...

Â£200,000 apparently for the defence, and again shows justice is only served properly to those who can afford it, which is a disgrace.


----------



## rksquire (Oct 10, 2018)

RandG said:



			Â£200,000 apparently for the defence, and again shows justice is only served properly to those who can afford it, which is a disgrace.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, however both sides costs were covered by 'others', namely The Christian Institute and Equalities Commission.  Had the Christian Institute not funded the defence I doubt very much if the bakers could have mounted a defence.  It's a shocking waste of money all round (both public & 'private').


----------



## User 99 (Oct 10, 2018)

rksquire said:



			Absolutely correct, however both sides costs were covered by 'others', namely The Christian Institute and Equalities Commission.  Had the Christian Institute not funded the defence I doubt very much if the bakers could have mounted a defence.  It's a shocking waste of money all round (both public & 'private').
		
Click to expand...

There is no way a local bakers could afford to take it that far and would've lost the case on the basis they couldn't finance taking it all the way, says everything about the legal system.


----------



## Slab (Oct 10, 2018)

I get there needs to be a process but it does seem staggering that the district crt got it wrong, the appeal crt to that ruling also got it wrong and it took a supreme crt with 5 judges to arrive at the same common sense (even obvious) ruling that GM forum member â€˜Judge Sweepâ€™ (& doubtless a few others among us) arrived at in just a few minutes!

In the above I am taking a liberty in assuming that Sweep didnâ€™t actually sit as one of the 5 supreme crt judges

The law should not be open to interpretation like this to enable the same evidence to be ruled in opposite ways, jeez even the rules of golf arenâ€™t open to interpretation!


----------



## User62651 (Oct 10, 2018)

Religious beliefs/doctrine and intolerance/homophobia interlinked, who'd have guessed it. 
It's 2018, even marriage as an institution itself is on the way out so the whole case is increasingly irrelevant anyway.


----------



## USER1999 (Oct 10, 2018)

Well, footjoy won't embroider offensive names on their my joys shoes, and it appears now that they are right in not doing so. Shame. Some of my mates have interesting nicknames.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 10, 2018)

For me the ruling was quite simplistic and correct. Dare one say common sense prevailed. However the guy who eventually lost the case is not happy and now feels offended. Happen he had great difficulty in understanding the summing up.


----------



## Don Barzini (Oct 10, 2018)

Common sense prevails. 

But that was one expensive cake.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 10, 2018)

Don Barzini said:



			Common sense prevails.

But that was one expensive cake.
		
Click to expand...

One expensive non-cake surely, as they refused the order...   Apparently it would only have been Â£36.50 if they had actually made it.


----------



## backwoodsman (Oct 11, 2018)

Slab said:



			I get there needs to be a process but it does seem staggering that the district crt got it wrong, the appeal crt to that ruling also got it wrong and it took a supreme crt with 5 judges to arrive at the same common sense (even obvious) ruling that GM forum member â€˜Judge Sweepâ€™ (& doubtless a few others among us) arrived at in just a few minutes!

In the above I am taking a liberty in assuming that Sweep didnâ€™t actually sit as one of the 5 supreme crt judges

*The law should not be open to interpretation like this to enable the same evidence to be ruled in opposite ways, jeez even the rules of golf arenâ€™t open to interpretation!*

Click to expand...

 Well good luck with that one ðŸ˜ 

To remove tbe need for interpretation, the law would need to be absolutely precise on every conceivable scenario. Which the rules of golf don't do, not even for the simple activity of knocking a ball across a field with a stick. Imagine trying to achieve it for the entirety of human existence?


----------



## bobmac (Oct 11, 2018)

backwoodsman said:



			Well good luck with that one ðŸ˜

To remove tbe need for interpretation, the law would need to be absolutely precise on every conceivable scenario. Which the rules of golf don't do, not even for the simple activity of knocking a ball across a field with a stick. Imagine trying to achieve it for the entirety of human existence?
		
Click to expand...

Especially when about half the planet are still taught that homosexuality is an abomination.


----------



## Don Barzini (Oct 11, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			One expensive non-cake surely, as they refused the order...   Apparently it would only have been Â£36.50 if they had actually made it.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. But Iâ€™d wager the bakers had no idea it would go this far, for this long and cost this much when they refused it initially. 

Iâ€™d also wager that this was a stunt at the very outset on the part of Gareth Lee. He was looking to pick a fight and he got one.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 11, 2018)

Don Barzini said:



			Indeed. But Iâ€™d wager the bakers had no idea it would go this far, for this long and cost this much when they refused it initially.

Iâ€™d also wager that this was a stunt at the very outset on the part of Gareth Lee. He was looking to pick a fight and he got one.
		
Click to expand...

Odd, I said exactly the same to Missis T last night.


----------



## Don Barzini (Oct 11, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Odd, I said exactly the same to Missis T last night.
		
Click to expand...

There were widely whispered rumours throughout this case that over a period of time he had been to several bakeries to order this very cake and that he was always just a man on a crusade, rather than a man who just wanted a cake.

And yes, they are just rumours. But some rumours are more believable than others.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 15, 2018)

For me a rather obvious outcome - eventually.  If this had been upheld and not overturned then so many absurd situations would arise.  Say I were an artist or photographer and a potential customer came in asking for me to photograph or paint something which, though lawful, I found to be abhorrent and so I refused - I would have been guilty of a crime - and that would be patently ludicrous.


----------

