When Authoritarians wave rainbow flags: The right to gay cake

hju6

Would a Muslim bakery be forced to bake a cake with a homosexual reference ?

A Primal Nut

Victor wrote: »

* "Support gay marriage"- generally considered inoffensive by the vast majority of the population. To not add the message (while allowing other messages) discriminates against a protected group.

Legally, how does that make sense in a country where gay marriage is illegal? Something is illegal, but if you agree with the law then according to the law you are discriminating which is illegal. So it's illegal to carry out actions which suggest you agree with the law as it is.

howiya

Pete29 wrote: »

It's their bakery, they found out about it some how and stopped the order. I agree, they should just refuse up front from now on if they have a problem with it.

Just been reading a little more about this. The person who took the order is a director of the company. Not just somebody on the till...

Sureiknow

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There is no law in Northern Ireland (as far as I'm aware of) outlawing discrimination against anti-Semites or Nazis.

The laws in northern Ireland cover discrimination against Nationally.

A Primal Nut

hju6 wrote: »

Would a Muslim bakery be forced to bake a cake with a homosexual reference ?

Zero chance of anyone trying this with them. The gay couple would be accused of Islamophobia.

Hotblack Desiato

Pete29 wrote: »

The law, unfortunately, is sometimes unjust. It's amazing that someone people will support forcing others to work against their will in the name of equality.

If they don't want to offer their services to all they can always not offer them to any.

Hotblack Desiato

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Zero chance of anyone trying this with them. The gay couple would be accused of Islamophobia.

What you are overlooking is that the law applies to everyone whatever their religion or non-belief.

Mancomb Seepgood

Pete29 wrote: »

...and yet the Blacks and the Irish survived some how.

Whatever about the Irish,African-Americans used to find it nearly impossible to travel due to the difficulty in finding hotels or restaurants to serve them. There was even a guide book: "The Negro Motorist Green Book" to help black people travelling for business or pleasure.In some towns it listed private homes as there were no hotels for black people.So much for the ability of the free market to address discrimination.

Nody

Pete29 wrote: »

I agree, baking the cake doesn't infringe on your right to have certain beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is, given that a person has certain beliefs, is it fair, right, or just, to force them to provide a service which contradicts those beliefs. Is it just to force a baker who doesn't agree with gay marriage to bake a cake supporting gay marriage if they don't want to?

Would you support a Muslim doctor who refuses to operate on specific gender due to religious beliefs? Or a Jewish veterinary who would refuse to treat pigs because they are not halal? How about a customer facing supervisor who refused to shake hands with females and only males? A swim instructor who insisted only having women in full burkas? A shop that only let females in, never any male? Or only let female in if they are there with a man? A care hire company insisting only male drivers are allowed? Female circumcision to be done by Irish Catholic doctors on children?

All of the above can be claimed on religious grounds as well so I hope you're all for supporting that as well.

Victor

Nody wrote: »

Would you support a Muslim doctor who refuses to operate on specific gender due to religious beliefs?

This is a misconception - touching the opposite gender to render medical assistance or save life is not forbidden by Islam.

Or a Jewish veterinary who would refuse to treat pigs because they are not halal?

I'm not sure your comment is kosher.

Brian?

Pete29 wrote: »

It doesn't hold water if you take my analogy from the perspective from which you are interpreting it. A cake with a message supporting gay marriage is a political message, and by your reasoning, it's fair not to support that political message and not make that cake. Of course people don't choose to be gay, but that's irrelevant. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. Whether it's a political message, or you're gay, black, Muslim, Jewish, Amish, etc. If someone doesn't want to sell their labor to you, you have no right to demand it, no matter who you are. To be forced to provide your services against your will is involuntary servitude and involuntary servitude is slavery.



I agree, If I owned a bakery I would have no problem making a cake supporting gay marriage, but some people, a minority I would say, don't support gay marriage for whatever reason.

A cake supporting gay marriage is only a political message if you see gay marriage as a political concept. I don't and would suggest that no one should. Being anti gay marriage is discriminatory, it's discriminating against a group based on their sexuality, which is something they cannot choose.

Being gay or black is not the same as being Muslim, Jewish or Amish. Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Why is religion held in such high esteem? The bakers chose to discriminate based on a religion they chose to believe in. The couple, like all gay people, did not chose to be gay.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Of course. Everyone discriminates.

If you don't like the look of someone, you may move to a different seat.
You may not provide a service to an OAP because it's likely to be more trouble.
You may not consider a traveller for a particular job.
If you see an invalid in an interview, you don't give them the job.

Now, we don't broadcast the reason why of course.

So, if homosexuals came into me looking for a cake with their messages (hypothetically now, and I didn't like it), they might get one, it may not be edible and they wouldn't be coming in again.

Then one may take their business where they will get superior service.

I'm glad that's clear. You're beliefs are disgusting.

Nody

Victor wrote: »

This is a misconception - touching the opposite gender to render medical assistance or save life is not forbidden by Islam.
I'm not sure your comment is kosher.

Neither is female genital mutilation part of the Koran but that does not stop people to claim it is part of their religious belief; Christian and Muslim in pharmacies refusing to hand out pills due to "religious objections" etc. The point being OP was all for allowing religious objections as allowed; this also opens up anyone else with any version of religious objections to do the same based on an interpretation of their respective holy text/traditions.

Oh and as a reference to the male doctor/female patient please see question 40.

Question 40: Is one able to refer to a doctor of the opposite sex for something that a doctor of the same gender is able to do?

Answer: If the doctor of the same gender is able to cure the patient than it is impermissible to refer to a doctor of the opposite sex.

So yes; a Muslim doctor can then claim that based on the interpretation of operation a female doctor could do instead which would cover pretty much every operation (note this narrow taking on it is bloody damn rare but once again if I was a Muslim Doctor and OP wants to be consistent I would have the right to refuse to treat female patients accordingly).

In terms of Kosher:

While a Jew may own non-kosher animals, he may not do business with non-kosher foods or non-kosher animals that are usually used or raised for human consumption. In other words, even though it is permissible to derive benefit from most types of non-kosher foods, one is forbidden to establish a business in this field.

Once again possible for a Jew to draw religious reason why they can't treat them (once again I can't see it happening very often in practice if ever but once again as an possible example of religious objection OP would accept as well to be consistent).

Brian?

bubblypop wrote: »

So a Baker, who in their own personal life happens to be Of The Christian religion?
Absolutely nothing to do with his work. No such job as a Christian Baker.

There were a fair few Christian bakers in the Roman Empire.

uck51js9zml2yt

Rightwing wrote: »

What a disgrace.
If someone doesn't want to deal with the likes of homosexuals or travellers, they shouldn't be forced to. No wonder people don't respect the law.

This wasn't the case. They had made cakes for this customer previously.
It was the message they disagreed with not the customers orientation.

Brian?

hju6 wrote: »

Would a Muslim bakery be forced to bake a cake with a homosexual reference ?

Yes, absolutely. Why do you think they wouldn't?

The_Captain

Pete29 wrote: »

Your first paragraph is a distinction without a difference. If you owned a bakery and someone entered asking you to bake a cake with a swastika and the words "Jews are rats" would you bake it? If not, your discriminating against that person based on your beliefs.

To your second paragraph - He wasn't denied service because of his sexual orientation. He was denied service because the baker did not wish to promote or condone gay marriage.

Nazis would never go to a baker for an anti-Semitic cake. They prefer to use their own ovens.

Galway_Old_Man

Amaya Abundant Traitor wrote: »

This wasn't the case. They had made cakes for this customer previously.
It was the message they disagreed with not the customers orientation.

Wasn't it the case that the customer wasn't even gay though? I may be getting it mixed up with a case from the states but I'm 90% sure.

Pete29

Pete29 wrote: »

Such as?

From time to time people do have to do or support things they disagree with, whether it's because of work, family, friends, etc - but can we honestly say, given we're in a position in which we can stay true to our beliefs, that we would choose to toss our sincerely held beliefs aside?

Your religious beliefs should not allow you to discriminate against others.
Thankfully the law is clear in this case.

And yes I believe in things that sometimes are the opposite of what I have to do in work. But I do my job, without my 'beliefs' influencing my actions.

oscarBravo

Rightwing wrote: »

If someone doesn't want to deal with the likes of homosexuals or travellers...

...or jews, or negroes, or (shudder) women...

Pete29 wrote: »

It is not a question of whether the baking of the cake, or the message written on it, will impact or dilute the baker's beliefs, or physically or mentally harm the baker, but a question of whether or not the baker has the right to control his business and labor.

The baker has the right to control his business and labour within the bounds set by the law.

To take an extreme example: let's take a hypothetical baker who doesn't like homosexuals or travellers (or jews, or negroes, or women, or whatever group he's decided are inferior in some way). Let's suppose he's asked to bake a cake for a member of that group. Instead of withholding his business, he bakes a cake laced with arsenic, and the customer dies.

I don't think anyone would argue that the baker has the right to control his business and labour in that way, because it's against the law.

Now, you'll argue in turn that denying someone the right to discriminate is an unjust law; that a businessman should have the right, unfettered by law, to treat some people as unworthy of his business. On that point we'll have to agree to differ.


I should add that I wasn't at all sure which way the case would go, and that I wouldn't have been all that put out if the judge had ruled the other way. But the law is what it is, and I have no issue with it being illegal to discriminate on the specified grounds. If you think there's a strong case for being allowed to discriminate against gay people, women, minorities or whomever, lobby your TD/MLA/whatever.

Galway_Old_Man

Wow, going onto killing customers... "You don't think you should pay your tv licence, ergo you think it's ok to murder RTE emoployees" territory here!

I'll go with Peter Tatchell's take on it, what would some people here think of it?

"Should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed?" or "Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier?" or should "gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs?"

To bring it home to another point, I've seen it come up again and again how outraged some people are at billboard trucks etc have Pro-Life/8th amendment ads on them recently. I'm sure those are fully behind the bakers here

Brian?

"Should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed?" or "Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier?" or should "gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs?"

Again, a false equivalency. People choose religion and choose to deny the holocaust. Christians chose to be Christian, they chose to discriminate against gay people who did not choose their sexuality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rightwing

Amaya Abundant Traitor wrote: »

This wasn't the case. They had made cakes for this customer previously.
It was the message they disagreed with not the customers orientation.

I haven't followed this case, but it seems most peculiar.

I wouldn't go to a place where I felt my business wasn't welcomed, who would stay in a hotel where they weren't welcomed for instance?

What are these homosexuals up to, eh?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

professore

It's a very interesting case.

I am not sure, but if the customer had asked for "Kill all white straight males" or some such, and the baker refused, he would have won the case, as the law doesn't mention white straight males as a minority group, and offensive statements against them are fine - in fact they are encouraged.

If he was Muslim, and the guy wanted him to bake a cake with a picture of a naked Mohammed, or even the exact same cake, and you can be damn sure he would have refused, would he have won or lost? Who wins there on the oppression olympics? In the blue corner a gay man, in the red corner a Muslim.

Having said all that, if I was in the cake making business, I think discrimination like this is stupid and shooting yourself in the foot, I'd bake whatever cake the customer wanted regardless, as long as I got paid, but it's not about me.

It would be great to move to a society where people are treated as individuals,rather than members of a group, and when someone is cooperative and friendly they get treated with respect, and conversely when they act like an asshole they don't get to play the gender / race / sexual orientation card. There are lots of very privileged individuals now playing the discrimination card against people who are actually less privileged than they are simply because they belong to one of these sacrosanct groups.

Nody

professore wrote: »

If he was Muslim, and the guy wanted him to bake a cake with a picture of a naked Mohammed, or even the exact same cake, and you can be damn sure he would have refused, would he have won or lost? Who wins there on the oppression olympics? In the blue corner a gay man, in the red corner a Muslim.

Still the gay man because being a Muslim still does not give you the right to opt out from following the legislation.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apples and bowling balls. There is nothing discriminatory about refusing to perform any abortion in any circumstances.

Just like if this baker said "sorry we don't supply wedding cakes" or "sorry we don't supply any cakes with personalised messages". They discriminated against a gay couple because they will supply wedding cakes to straight people and personalised cakes to anyone they agree with.

We both believe in a free society. But you can't have a free society if everyone is free to discriminate. It's a doozie of a dilemma for me. Where does freedom of expression end and discrimination begin? Would you propose that the free market will eradicate discrimination by empowering the least discriminatory businesses and allowing them to thrive as they'll have a larger market share?

professore

Nody wrote: »

Still the gay man because being a Muslim still does not give you the right to opt out from following the legislation.

I had a quick look at it there: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1998/3162/contents

It seems that a customer can do or say whatever the hell they want, as only the trader is bound by the laws. Hardly fair?

So in my hypothetical scenario, if the Muslim wants an "I hate gays" cake, he gets it. If the gay guy wants a naked Mohammed, he gets it. If a white supremacist wants a "I hate fags" cake from a gay baker, he has to provide it. Seems a charter for harassment to me.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How can you equate marriage equality to a political or religious belief? People don't choose to be gay. They're not pushing an agenda, they're seeking equality with heterosexual couples. I don't see how wanting equal treatment can be seen as a political cause.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

Apples and bowling balls. There is nothing discriminatory about refusing to perform any abortion in any circumstances.

Just like if this baker said "sorry we don't supply wedding cakes" or "sorry we don't supply any cakes with personalised messages". They discriminated against a gay couple because they will supply wedding cakes to straight people and personalised cakes to anyone they agree with.

We both believe in a free society. But you can't have a free society if everyone is free to discriminate. It's a doozie of a dilemma for me. Where does freedom of expression end and discrimination begin? Would you propose that the free market will eradicate discrimination by empowering the least discriminatory businesses and allowing them to thrive as they'll have a larger market share?

Should a business have the right to refuse a group of travellers entry?

Brian?

professore wrote: »

It's a very interesting case.

I am not sure, but if the customer had asked for "Kill all white straight males" or some such, and the baker refused, he would have won the case, as the law doesn't mention white straight males as a minority group, and offensive statements against them are fine - in fact they are encouraged.

If he was Muslim, and the guy wanted him to bake a cake with a picture of a naked Mohammed, or even the exact same cake, and you can be damn sure he would have refused, would he have won or lost? Who wins there on the oppression olympics? In the blue corner a gay man, in the red corner a Muslim.

Having said all that, if I was in the cake making business, I think discrimination like this is stupid and shooting yourself in the foot, I'd bake whatever cake the customer wanted regardless, as long as I got paid, but it's not about me.

It would be great to move to a society where people are treated as individuals,rather than members of a group, and when someone is cooperative and friendly they get treated with respect, and conversely when they act like an asshole they don't get to play the gender / race / sexual orientation card. There are lots of very privileged individuals now playing the discrimination card against people who are actually less privileged than they are simply because they belong to one of these sacrosanct groups.

Gay people can't get married in the North. That's not playing the discrimination card. That's actually being discrimated against.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Should a business have the right to refuse a group of travellers entry?

No.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

I haven't followed this case, but it seems most peculiar.

I wouldn't go to a place where I felt my business wasn't welcomed, who would stay in a hotel where they weren't welcomed for instance?

What are these homosexuals up to, eh?

They have some neck. Trying to live their lives tell same way heterosexuals do. How dare they expect equal treatment?

Zubeneschamali

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This kind of legislation didn't come out of thin air. The reason it's on the statute books is because businesses historically weren't self-regulating as you describe and often did discriminate against gays, women, blacks, etc.

And in the North, especially Catholics. Cool with that, OP?

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

They have some neck. Trying to live their lives tell same way heterosexuals do. How dare they expect equal treatment?

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Why not go to baker that would like their business? That would seem like a logical conclusion to me, or could they be looking for a cheap payout like the above case? We needn't delve too deep into cases until we arrive at financial retribution.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

I haven't followed this case, but it seems most peculiar.

I wouldn't go to a place where I felt my business wasn't welcomed, who would stay in a hotel where they weren't welcomed for instance?

What are these homosexuals up to, eh?

If I felt my presence wasn't wanted for a particular reason, for example because I'm a woman, then I would absolutely kick up a stink about it.
If I wasn't welcomed into a hotel for a reason unknown to me, I would go out if my way to give that hotel bad reviews based on my treatment there.

Victor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a difference in scale between cake and abortion.

However, Doctors also have an ethical responsibility to refer such patients to another doctor. As with the rules adopted in 2015(?) regarding abortion in Ireland, while individuals can claim a conscientious objection, a hospital can't.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

Why not go to baker that would like their business?

Because if this kind of discrimination is legal and there are enough bigots, there will be large swathes of the country where no baker will take such an order.

And if there is one thing Northern Ireland has a plentiful supply of, it is bigots.

Which is why the customer wanted a "support gay marriage cake" in the first place - gay marriage is still not a legal thing in the North, even though it is down South and in Britain.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Everybody has the potential to wreck the place

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Why not go to baker that would like their business? That would seem like a logical conclusion to me, or could they be looking for a cheap payout like the above case? We needn't delve too deep into cases until we arrive at financial retribution.

I get it. You don't like gays or travellers. But I prefer not to discriminate against groups of people.

Rightwing

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because if this kind of discrimination is legal and there are enough bigots, there will be large swathes of the country where no baker will take such an order.

And if there is one thing Northern Ireland has a plentiful supply of, it is bigots.

Which is why the customer wanted a "support gay marriage cake" in the first place - gay marriage is still not a legal thing in the North, even though it is down South and in Britain.

This could be deemed a discriminatory statement against the folk from the North.

bubblypop wrote: »

Everybody has the potential to wreck the place

Some more than others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

This could be deemed a discriminatory statement against the folk from the North.

There is no law against discriminating against Nordies.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

I get it. You don't like gays or travellers. But I prefer not to discriminate against groups of people.

Incorrect.
I don't have a problem with them, but hypothetically I wouldn't like to be dealing with them if say I owned a hotel, or I wouldn't like them as neighbours. Not sure you would either, but crucially, the real crime here is whether one admits to it or not.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Why not go to baker that would like their business? That would seem like a logical conclusion to me, or could they be looking for a cheap payout like the above case? We needn't delve too deep into cases until we arrive at financial retribution.

I'm going to come straight out and say this, damn the consequences.

You are a bigot. You'd refuse travellers entry to a premises because they are travellers. If you were a baker you'd make a cake for gay people that would make them unwell, because they're gay. That is bigotry and your are a bigot.

Anyone else you'd like to treat unfairly because of their background, ethnicity or sexuality?

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

I'm going to come straight out and say this, damn the consequences.

You are a bigot. You'd refuse travellers entry to a premises because they are travellers. If you were a baker you'd make a cake for gay people that would make them unwell, because they're gay. That is bigotry and your are a bigot.

Anyone else you'd like to treat unfairly because of their background, ethnicity or sexuality?

Absolute nonsense. Calm down. I said hypothetically.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apples and tennis balls this time.

Basing condition of employment on religion is discrimination because the discriminator is applying an arbitrary decision to a group of people.

My point is that an employer or a business should not be allowed to discriminate against groups based on their own beliefs.