Gay Cake Controversy!

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its political. There's going to be a referendum to allow same sex marriage. People are entitled to support or oppose it. Opposing it is not in breach of discrimination laws. And the equality commission imo were wrong to conclude the customer was discriminated against based on his sexuality. Given it was what was on the cake and not the sexuality of the customer which resulted in them declining to make it. I think this will be shown very clearly and quite quickly if this incident goes to court which I don't think it will because I don't think the equality authority understood the full story when issuing its threats of legal action.

Referendums are by definition matters decided on by individual people and not political parties. You are of course entitled to opine that the equality commission was wrong but at the end of the day they are the body that will rule on the matter relevant to existing quality legislation.

kunst nugget

floggg wrote: »

I don't know whether or not this is a case of indirect discrimination or not - but refusing a message not the person can be indirect discrimination.

I.e. Something which is not directly targeted at a person themselves, but as a matter of practice is only likely to affect people who belong to the same group as that person.


E.g. If I say I won't bake an Eid cake because I don't believe in Eid, yet will bake Xmas cakes with no issue, my rule will be indirectly discriminatory as in practice it will only effect Muslims.

Whether that is the case here or not I don't know. I imagine it depend on whether they have a general rule against "advocacy cakes". If they previously baked a "ban abortion" cake they may have an issue. Or if they bake pro-Christian cakes but not anything that's out of line with Christian beliefs. They facilitate one religion but not people of different religions or no religion.

This is where it starts to get extremely wooly - They are discriminating against us, and if it's not directly, it's indirectly.

Should I protest against a kosher bakery or a halal butchers because they facilitate one religion but not people of different religions?

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

See relevant discrimination legislation. It may be enlightening. A useful example is the African American civil rights movement. Would you advocate segregation by colour because others believed it to be right? Their is no civil right to discriminate against others thankfully.

It's not segregation based on sexuality; the online statement from Ashers clearly states that the order was at odds with their belief.

Using your example; if a white person asked for a cake with a message advocating equality for black people and was decline, would that still be segregation based on the colour. The customer in both cases regardless of race or sexual orientation is not the issue, it was simply the message on the cake.

folan

FunLover18 wrote: »

it was simply the message on the cake.

and its ok to discriminate based on the message, but not the people

Donkey Oaty

folan wrote: »

and its ok to discriminate based on the message, but not the people

Legally, it probably is.

FunLover18

folan wrote: »

and its ok to discriminate based on the message, but not the people

Yes.

If a baker refused to bake a cake with the message "Down with SSM" that would be discrimination of a message but I doubt you'd have a problem.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's not segregation based on sexuality; the online statement from Ashers clearly states that the order was at odds with their belief.

Using your example; if a white person asked for a cake with a message advocating equality for black people and was decline, would that still be segregation based on the colour. The customer in both cases regardless of race or sexual orientation is not the issue, it was simply the message on the cake.

That example doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As it is The equality commission have already decided that there is a case to be investigated under equality legislation. End of story until a final determination is made.

gozunda

kunst nugget wrote: »

The case is flawed. The equality commission will have to prove that the bakery would have made the exact same cake if the person ordering it had not been gay. I think it's safe to assume that they wouldn't have.

Erhh no they don't. The existing legislation is quite clear. They must make the determination on the facts as they stand not as how they may be imagined...

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

But the bakery were not discriminating against anyone. They chose not to back a campaign that would go against their beliefs. The rights of no individuals were discriminated against.

Again that's not what The equality commission have taken action on under existing Equality Legislation. Your personal view is you own but it doesn't make it right under the law as it stands.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

"It" being the message 'support SSM'.

I think that you will find the the EC have understood this in the fullest sense ie

“We felt it was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches,”

Ie that the Bakery declined service on the basis of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

K-9

keano_afc wrote: »

So the civil rights of the baker are not applicable? Are one groups civil rights more prominent that the others?

The crux of it really. The bakery are entitled to refuse it, and people are entitled to make a big deal of that, and so here we are!

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

That example doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As it is The equality commission have already decided that there is a case to be investigated under equality legislation. End of story until a final determination is made.

They believe there is a case to be investigated yet as you said yourself a final determination has not been made.

I can denconstruct the example if you wish
-a white man places an order in a bakery for a cake with message 'equality for black people'
-the bakery declines the order as it contradicts with their beliefs
-these beliefs are wrong (in my mind, and in yours) none the less the owner of the bakery has a right to them
-the owner has not discriminated on the basis of the client's colour, he has discriminated against the message on the cake

similarly
-a heterosexual could have entered Ashers and ordered the "Support SSM" cake
-Ashers would have again declined the order
-they are clearly not discriminating against the man because of his sexuality they are discriminating against the message which they disagree with

simples

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

I think that you will find the the EC have understood this in the fullest sense ie

“We felt it was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches,”

Ie that the Bakery declined service on the basis of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

If you watch the actual statement put out by Ashers

"THIS ORDER was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches"

The bakery has been specifically targeted by a minority group wishing to get free publicity for their cause. The bakery refused to print their propoganda. They did not refuse to sell a cake.

gozunda

kunst nugget wrote: »

This is where it starts to get extremely wooly - They are discriminating against us, and if it's not directly, it's indirectly.

Should I protest against a kosher bakery or a halal butchers because they facilitate one religion but not people of different religions?

Not as long as they don't refuse to serve or sell anything in their shop. Would you expect to go into a hardware store and demand a loaf of bread? No well you wouldn't expect a specific type of food shop such as halal to serve pork. In this case the shop in question which served cakes with customised toppings. The customer asked for one of these and was refused.

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

If human rights are denied to a minority group through the legislation of a country and the only way that these human rights can be gained by that group is through a referendum, then surely it becomes a political issue?

The term political implies it's a policy or platform issue - that there's no right or wrong on the issue, just competing approaches. That it's not something that citizens should be guaranteed or entitled to, but something which is open to the government of the day to grant or revoke.

I don't view my right to equality as a political matter or debate, no matter how it is or is not to implemented or debated, in much the same way I doubt MLK thought civil rights was just a political issue.

The government may be using a "political" mechanism to enact it, but that doesn't mean the issue is political one in my book.

Corkfeen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The bakery has been specifically targeted by a minority group wishing to get free publicity for their cause. The bakery refused to print their propoganda. They did not refuse to sell a cake.

Out of interest would you have viewed a cake that supported interracial marriage in sixties America as propaganda? I find it highly amusing what you classify as propaganda.

Awkward Badger

gozunda wrote: »

Referendums are by definition matters decided on by individual people and not political parties. You are of course entitled to opine that the equality commission was wrong but at the end of the day they are the body that will rule on the matter relevant to existing quality legislation.

I don't see what political parties have to do with anything. The term political doesn't just relate to party politics. The campaign I assume is trying to influence voters in the upcoming referendum to achieve the outcome they want. That's a political campaign.

And I don't know if they are the body that will rule on it so much as they are a body that will take up these matters if they feel they need to. Its the courts which will rule on if it the bakery stand their ground and challenge the equality commission. I don't think the equality commission has any power to do anything without a court ruling in their favour.

kunst nugget

gozunda wrote: »

Not as long as they don't refuse to serve or sell anything in their shop. Would you expect to go into a hardware store and demand a loaf of bread? No well you wouldn't expect a specific type of food shop such as halal to serve pork. In this case the shop in question which served cakes with customised toppings. The customer asked for one of these and was refused.

You're strawmanning there. It's not a bakery that regularly makes cakes advocating SSM and then refused to sell one to a gay person. Part of the business is to create one off cakes and they've said they've already refused to create cakes which they didn't believe suited the ethos of the bakery.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

If you watch the actual statement put out by Ashers


"THIS ORDER was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches"

I took the quote from their written statement but either way it does not change that the Bakery declined serviceon the basis of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

The order was made a person who was representing a specific group. By refusing that person they risk being found guilty of discrimination.

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

This is where it starts to get extremely wooly - They are discriminating against us, and if it's not directly, it's indirectly.

Should I protest against a kosher bakery or a halal butchers because they facilitate one religion but not people of different religions?

No. They provide a product or service - kosher/halal meat. They are required to provide it all on the same basis to all people of all religions. They aren't required under equality legislation to provide any additional products or services.

A baker provides a cake making and decorating service. Writing something on the cake is part of their standard service.

So they must do it on the same terms to all.

So if they make Xmas cakes they should make Eid cakes. There would be no discrimination however if only sold generic cake rather than "celebration/cakes".

Similarly if they had a rule against all "advocacy" cakes and just did celebration cakes they would likely be fine - as long as the would refuse both the pro and anti side of the debate they are consistent.

Indirect discrimination only arises where you have a rule or policy which only or disproportionally affects one group only - such as permitting all "advocacy cakes" exempt "LGBT advocacy cakes".

It's really not wooly at all, and is a well established principle enshrined in the legislation. Whilst you may be unfamiliar with the concept, it is a very well developed one.

The problem with this thread is that people don't actually have any understanding of the nature of equality legislation or indeed of direct and indirect forms of discrimination. And they don't seem to want to try and understand it - they see a result they don't like and get outraged.

The fact that it is over something which seems relatively trivial like cakes may make the issue appear absurd in the abstract which also doesn't help.

Annasopra

FunLover18 wrote: »

They believe there is a case to be investigated yet as you said yourself a final determination has not been made.

I can denconstruct the example if you wish
-a white man places an order in a bakery for a cake with message 'equality for black people'
-the bakery declines the order as it contradicts with their beliefs
-these beliefs are wrong (in my mind, and in yours) none the less the owner of the bakery has a right to them
-the owner has not discriminated on the basis of the client's colour, he has discriminated against the message on the cake

similarly
-a heterosexual could have entered Ashers and ordered the "Support SSM" cake
-Ashers would have again declined the order
-they are clearly not discriminating against the man because of his sexuality they are discriminating against the message which they disagree with

simples

Its indirect discrimination.

If a company put a height barrier on its recruitment then that would be illegal under equality law for indirectly discriminating against women.

old hippy

Deleted User wrote: »

The message on the cake was a political one. It was a cake asking for support for gay marriage which is political. The bakers are perfectly entitled to turn away business if it goes against what they believe. They did not discriminate against a gay person, they merely refused to bake a cake which contained a political message which went against their beliefs.

No, they discriminated against all gay people.

And the message went against their belief that it's fine to discriminate & treat some people as second class citizens.

mackerski

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If a company put a height barrier on its recruitment then that would be illegal under equality law for indirectly discriminating against women.

Or if they required all staff to be Christian. Or if all staff somehow mysteriously just happened to be Christian...

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I don't see what political parties have to do with anything. The term political doesn't just relate to party politics. The campaign I assume is trying to influence voters in the upcoming referendum to achieve the outcome they want. That's a political campaign.

And I don't know if they are the body that will rule on it so much as they are a body that will take up these matters if they feel they need to. Its the courts which will rule on if it the bakery stand their ground and challenge the equality commission. I don't think the equality commission has any power to do anything without a court ruling in their favour.

You are right political parties have nothing to do with SSM. For your benefit I will requote the definition of 'political' in all its meanings

From: Merriam Webster's online dictionary

Political

1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy 2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics 3 : organized in governmental terms <political units> 4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

Just because some political parties jump on the bandwagon of a civil rights issues to garner votes does not make it a 'political' matter.

The EC decision is based on existing rights legislation and their determination is to a civil standard.

old hippy

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I'm with the bakery on this one. If they don't want to bake the cake then they shouldn't have to it's the gay community acting the bully and everyone afraid to say because they will be classed as homophobic. I don't care what people do in their own homes.

Then why mention it? How is the entire gay community "acting the bully"?

murra wrote: »

I don't see the problem? It follows their religious beliefs end of story.

The Bible also advocates slavery, stoning and other unpleasant stuff. End of story or worth revising in a modern world?

keano_afc wrote: »

So the civil rights of the baker are not applicable? Are one groups civil rights more prominent that the others?

The civil rights to discriminate against people because of their sexuality?

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Did they order a fairy cake?

It doesn't get any funnier, even on the 4th posting of that "joke".

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

You're strawmanning there. It's not a bakery that regularly makes cakes advocating SSM and then refused to sell one to a gay person. Part of the business is to create one off cakes and they've said they've already refused to create cakes which they didn't believe suited the ethos of the bakery.

Regardless of whether they had a right to refuse, there no fundamental difference in the nature of the service provided where the provide a custom cake decorated with a pro-LGBT message and a custom cake decorated with a one direction theme.

In each case the service is cake making and decoration.

So what they were asked to do is something they do as a regular part of their business - baking a cake and sticking icing, cream and fondant on it in a pattern. The only difference here is that they disliked the particular way they were asked to stick the icing, fondant and cream on the cake.

This argument that they were asked to do something out of the ordinary is illogical and absurd. A cake is a cake no matter what you write on it.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

No, they discriminated against all gay people.

And the message went against their belief that it's fine to discriminate & treat some people as second class citizens.

They didn't discriminate against anyone. They mere refused to bake something with a message that they not agree with. They would have refused if a straight person request the cake in question.

Is it discrimination if a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message against the support of gay marriage?

Awkward Badger

gozunda wrote: »

You are right political parties have nothing to do with SSM. For your benefit I will requote the definition of 'political' in all its meanings

From: Merriam Webster's online dictionary

Political

1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy 2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics 3 : organized in governmental terms <political units> 4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

Just because some political parties jump on the bandwagon of a civil rights issues to garner votes does not make it a 'political' matter.

The EC decision is based on existing rights legislation and their determination is to a civil standard.

Its a political campaign. Its a campaign to influence the outcome of a public vote to change the laws in relation to same sex marriage.

From the oxford online dictionary

"relating to the government or public affairs of a country:"

"The activities associated with the governance of a country or area".

A campaign and a vote to change the laws is related to the governance of this country. Just because you belief the issue is related to human rights doesn't mean its not still a political campaign.

old hippy

Deleted User wrote: »

They didn't discriminate against anyone. They mere refused to bake something with a message that they not agree with. They would have refused if a straight person request the cake in question.

Is it discrimination if a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message against the support of gay marriage?

They refused on the flimsy grounds of belief system. The wider message is to deny gay people the right to marital equality.

Your question has been answered several times; it's folly & a distraction and has no bearing on the topic.

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

I took the quote from their written statement but either way it does not change that the Bakery declined service on the basis of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

The order was made a person who was representing a specific group. By refusing that person they risk being found guilty of discrimination.

No, they declined a service based on their religious beliefs on marriage, there is no reference whatsoever to their religious beliefs on homosexuality (unless you can find me one) in the same way that they've previously denied services based on their religious beliefs on language of pornography. Beliefs which they are perfectly entitled to have.

As has been mentioned before the fact that the customer was a representative of a specific group is irrelevant. I could go up to Belfast tomorrow and order the same cake and they'd still decline me, not because my sexuality (I'm heeterosexual) but because of their religious beliefs on marriage which they are entitled to do.

_Redzer_

Deleted User wrote: »

They didn't discriminate against anyone. They mere refused to bake something with a message that they not agree with. They would have refused if a straight person request the cake in question.

Is it discrimination if a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message against the support of gay marriage?

So if I owned a bakery it would be perfectly understandable to tell anyone to piss off if they asked for a christening, communion or confirmation cake because I don't believe in the message? It'd still be retarded beyond belief. But then again, I'd bake it because what's the harm in it? It's the religious who are always the problem with anything they don't like and they'll always kick up a storm and refuse to be tolerant

kunst nugget

floggg wrote: »

Regardless of whether they had a right to refuse, there no fundamental difference in the nature of the service provided where the provide a custom cake decorated with a pro-LGBT message and a custom cake decorated with a one direction theme.

In each case the service is cake making and decoration.

So what they were asked to do is something they do as a regular part of their business - baking a cake and sticking icing, cream and fondant on it in a pattern. The only difference here is that they disliked the particular way they were asked to stick the icing, fondant and cream on the cake.

This argument that they were asked to do something out of the ordinary is illogical and absurd. A cake is a cake no matter what you write on it.

But if they refuse to make a penis cake, are they discriminating anyone?

FunLover18

old hippy wrote: »

They refused on the flimsy grounds of belief system. The wider message is to deny gay people the right to marital equality.

Your question has been answered several times; it's folly & a distraction and has no bearing on the topic.

The gay community are the ones who brought this into public knowledge not Ashers. Ashers didn't come out and say "Aren't we great we decided not to bake a cake supporting gay marriage". They weren't spreading any message, they merely declined (in a private phone call) to spread a message they didn't believe in.

floggg

FunLover18 wrote: »

No, they declined a service based on their religious beliefs on marriage, there is no reference whatsoever to their religious beliefs on homosexuality (unless you can find me one) in the same way that they've previously denied services based on their religious beliefs on language of pornography. Beliefs which they are perfectly entitled to have.

Sorry but it would be absurd to think that a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only does not contain an inherent judgment on homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

Even ignoring all the supposed biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it contains an implicit judgment that gay relationships are lesser.

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

But if they refuse to make a penis cake, are they discriminating anyone?

I can't see how it would fit within any of the 9 protected grounds myself so I will say no.

gozunda

kunst nugget wrote: »

You're strawmanning there. It's not a bakery that regularly makes cakes advocating SSM and then refused to sell one to a gay person. Part of the business is to create one off cakes and they've said they've already refused to create cakes which they didn't believe suited the ethos of the bakery.

No straw manning however there has been a fair bit of splitting straws as in the example given demanding something that a shop doesn't sell as in the example of the halal shop and a person looking for non halal food.

They may refused something pornographic but those refusals did not contravene rights under equality legislation. Refusing to serve a customised cake in a customised cake shop to a person representing a particular sexual orientation on the basis that it does not agree with the owners religious views does apparently. It's not me saying this by the way - this is the initial finding of the EC. I would reckon they have handled at least a number of cases like this already...

samantha fortune

Portal CAKE Song – Still Alive

This was a triumph.
I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there’s no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
And the Science gets done.
And you make a neat gun.
For the people who are still alive.
I’m not even angry.
I’m being so sincere right now.
Even though you broke my heart.
And killed me.
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we’re out of beta.
We’re releasing on time.
So I’m GLaD. I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are still alive.
Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay inside.
Maybe you’ll find someone else to help you.
Maybe Black Mesa
THAT WAS A JOKE.
HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
Anyway, this cake is great.
It’s so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking
when there’s Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I’m not you.
I’ve experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.
And believe me I am still alive.
I’m doing Science and I’m still alive.
I feel FANTASTIC and I’m still alive.
While you’re dying I’ll be still alive.
And when you’re dead I will be still alive.
STILL ALIVE
STILL ALIVE

gozunda

floggg wrote: »

I can't see how it would fit within any of the 9 protected grounds myself so I will say no.

Agreed - this does not fall under Equality Legislation

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

They refused on the flimsy grounds of belief system. The wider message is to deny gay people the right to marital equality.

Your question has been answered several times; it's folly & a distraction and has no bearing on the topic.

They are entitled to refuse to bake something with a message they do not agree with. They have stated that in the past they refused to bake a cake with pornographic imagery on it.

And why is that question a folly or misdirection? If such a situation occurred then would it be considered discrimination or would the gay baker be championed for standing up for what he believes in?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So if I owned a bakery it would be perfectly understandable to tell anyone to piss off if they asked for a christening, communion or confirmation cake because I don't believe in the message? It'd still be retarded beyond belief. But then again, I'd bake it because what's the harm in it? It's the religious who are always the problem with anything they don't like and they'll always kick up a storm and refuse to be tolerant

You'd be perfectly entitled to refuse to bake a cake that contained a message that you didn't agree with. it may not make business sense but you can run your own business as you see fit.

Awkward Badger

This is going in circles from they are entitled to no they're not, its discrimination, against who, they not entitled, yes they are, its discrimination, no its not. Its going nowhere.

My view is that it wasn't discrimination because I don't see how the sexuality of the customer had any bearing on the decision not to make the cake because the issue was what was on the cake not the sexuality of the customer.

I'd imagine the equality commission will be regretting sending that letter because its assertion that the baker refused the order based on the sexuality of the customer is completely wrong and without foundation.

It won't go to court because there has been no breach of the law. And I hope the bakery takes action against the equality commission for wrongly attempting to deny them their rights and in the process adding fuel to the fire that will have no doubt damaged the bakeries business.

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its a political campaign. Its a campaign to influence the outcome of a public vote to change the laws in relation to same

A campaign and a vote to change the laws is related to the governance of this country. Just because you belief the issue is related to human rights doesn't mean its not still a political campaign.

Public not 'political'

Equality is a civil rights issue. It may be adopted by a political party but in its own right it remains a civil rights issue.

Another example If it gets written up in a newspaper does it become an editorial matter? - no.

Civil rights are held by individuals. Governments may use civil rights issues to bandwagon and when in power they are obliged to legislate as in the will of the people however that legislation is of the country or state for the people and not any one political party.

I Heart Internet

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

It's going in circles because some people think that people have no right to disagree with them.

Cushie Butterfield

FunLover18 wrote: »

Ashers didn't come out

Maybe it's time they did

No doubt they have no problem baking a Simpsons Cake - there have been many controversial episodes of that which would have been contrary to their religion. I wonder have they refused to bake one for a child's birthday? I doubt it. Would a child be refused a birthday cake if they had stolen biscuits from the cupboard in the past? After all, stealing is against Ashers religious beliefs also, or is it ok?

What about Superman cakes? Or any other cakes that depict a higher force or being? Surely they would also be contrary to their religious beliefs.

I wonder do they veto all prospective clients to ensure that they haven't in the past been involved in any activities that contravene the 'thou shalt not kill' religious rule, or 'tho shalt not steal' religious rule or the 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife' religious rule.


If they did they would have much time to bake any cakes at all, never mind decorate them.

darkpagandeath

Whats cake and religion got to do with each other ?

FunLover18

floggg wrote: »

Sorry but it would be absurd to think that a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only does not contain an inherent judgment on homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

Even ignoring all the supposed biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it contains an implicit judgment that gay relationships are lesser.

They're entitled to these beliefs though (wrong as you and I both know they are) and they're entitled not to want to put their name to a message which contradicts those beliefs.

I Heart Internet

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I wonder do they veto all prospective clients to ensure that they haven't in the past been involved in any activities that contravene the 'thou shalt not kill' religious rule, or 'tho shalt not steal' religious rule or the 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife' religious rule.


If they did they would have much time to bake any cakes at all, never mind decorate them.

They have, apparently, refused other order in the past that they did not wish to be involved with (pornographic images, swearing).

It may come as a shock to you, but people have the right determine for themselves what they approve of or don't. They don't even have to be consistent about it.

In this case, the bakery didn't fancy being party to a SSM campaign.

FunLover18

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Whats cake and religion got to do with each other ?

Jesus took cake, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my birthday."

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

....

My view is that it wasn't discrimination because I don't see how the sexuality of the customer had any bearing on the decision not to make the cake because the issue was what was on the cake not the sexuality of the customer.

I'd imagine the equality commission will be regretting sending that letter because its assertion that the baker refused the order based on the sexuality of the customer is completely wrong and without foundation.

It won't go to court because there has been no breach of the law. And I hope the bakery takes action against the equality commission for wrongly attempting to deny them their rights and in the process adding fuel to the fire that will have no doubt damaged the bakeries business.

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

Unfortunately it has been going around in circles because despite very clear information from a number of posters concerning the ECs actions in this matter / some posters are replacing what happened with an alternative version of reality

It is quite clear under equality legislation that to refuse to serve a customised cake in a customised cake shop to a person representing a particular sexual orientation on the basis that the order does not agree with the owners religious views on specific sexual orientation is in contravention of specific equality legislation. It's not me saying this by the way - this is the initial finding of the EC. I would reckon they have handled at least a number of cases like this already...

I doubt that this is the first case of its type the EC has had to deal with. They have the remit to make a determination in this case and I am sure that they have legal and legislative advisors who are employed to ensure that their determinations are valid.

Cushie Butterfield

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It may come as a shock to you, but people have the right determine for themselves what they approve of or don't. They don't even have to be consistent about it.

I didn't say I was shocked - the only thing that surprises me is the fact that a business comes out with ridiculous excuses such as they did to turn down income. Let's hope that they veto all their suppliers to ensure that none of their staff are in a same sex relationship. If not they are the ones who may be shocked.