Christian bakers 'gay cake' appeal defeat

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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?

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]

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!!

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

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