Bakers face legal action over Gay Cake

[truman]

* Oh, i'm not against gay people what-so-ever...

 

My first cynical thought when I saw this on the news was, I bet this guy (or mates) went around all the cake shops putting in this order just to see if they could ruffle a few feathers in a very very religious region.

 

Second thought was, why do pubs put up those signs saying they reserve the right to refuse.

 

Thirdly was, why did this guy take this matter further and not simply move on, refer to first point.

 

 

* I wasn't going to get involved in this one, so don't bother expecting any answers because i'm just giving my initial thoughts.

 

Landlords are allowed, by law ,to refuse to serve anyone they want...as I understand it anyway..

[tzijlstra]

You said

"n fact, I challenge anybody to find me a quote where the bible dismisses gay relations. "

 

So I did... that's all....I never said I agreed with the baker or the gay couple...

 

Fair do's!

 

* Oh, i'm not against gay people what-so-ever...

 

My first cynical thought when I saw this on the news was, I bet this guy (or mates) went around all the cake shops putting in this order just to see if they could ruffle a few feathers in a very very religious region.

 

Second thought was, why do pubs put up those signs saying they reserve the right to refuse.

 

Thirdly was, why did this guy take this matter further and not simply move on, refer to first point.

 

 

* I wasn't going to get involved in this one, so don't bother expecting any answers because i'm just giving my initial thoughts.

 

Regarding your first thought, you might well be right, but if that is the case than it is up to the court to judge accordingly.

 

Regarding your second thought (and Loob's points to a degree) if you indicate clearly what your terms and conditions are, nobody can argue them. A pub saying they reserve the right to refuse is doing it right, as is a school saying you can't wear trainers, as is a department store saying 'do not touch'.

 

The fact is that it is an interesting case. If these people were refused the order because the owner realised it had come in and decided he didn't want to take part (which is what the story sounds like) than it is discrimination, unless he has terms and conditions that state they have a right to refuse serving people. And at that point those T&Cs should be scrutinised.

[L00b]

You can't limit my criteria for responding.

You can't force me to accept your dodge as a legitimate reply.

Gay marriage is not equivalent to murdering aid workers.

Nice strawman.

<...>Regarding your second thought (and Loob's points to a degree) if you indicate clearly what your terms and conditions are, nobody can argue them. A pub saying they reserve the right to refuse is doing it right, as is a school saying you can't wear trainers, as is a department store saying 'do not touch'.

 

The fact is that it is an interesting case. If these people were refused the order because the owner realised it had come in and decided he didn't want to take part (which is what the story sounds like) than it is discrimination, unless he has terms and conditions that state they have a right to refuse serving people. And at that point those T&Cs should be scrutinised.

Again, tzijlstra, please look up and maybe familiarise yourself a bit with the concept of "invitation to treat". It's a quintessentially British legal principle, very (very) long settled, entirely relevant and applicable to Northern Ireland and -I expect- 100% relevant to this case. Edited November 7, 2014 by L00b

[Chris_Sleeps]

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman, because it was your comparison. You mentioned Islamic State, not me.

 

Baking a cake for a gay marriage is not the same as baking a cake celebrating the beheading of aid workers. Gay marriage is legal, and beheading people isn't.

 

--------

 

"Invitation to Treat" didn't save the B&B owners that were ruled against in the Supreme Court because they refused to do business with a homosexual couple. This isn't without precedent.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Chris_Sleeps

[tzijlstra]

Again, tzijlstra, please look up and maybe familiarise yourself a bit with the concept of "invitation to treat". It's a quintessentially British legal principle, very (very) long settled, entirely relevant and applicable to Northern Ireland and -I expect- 100% relevant to this case.

 

I am not familiar with this or any other trade law, what I am familiar with is the fact that discrimination law trumps this sort of case.

 

If I run a fish and chips in Pagehall and I refuse to serve Roma people I will be liable to a court case.

 

(Edit: I took over a school library that refused to serve Moroccan children, I know what happened in court in the Netherlands, this does of course not necessarily translate to the UK).

[Pritt Stick]

Has anybody pointed out yet that it's not a gay cake (in that baked products don't have a sexual preference), but instead it's a cake that has a slogan on the top that promotes marriage between gay people as being equal and valid.

[L00b]

Not a strawman, because it was your comparison. You mentioned Islamic State, not me.

It is a strawman, because IS was used an example of beliefs motivating a cake order by radical Muslims (to the exact same extent as beliefs in gay marriage motivated the order in this news story), and the response clearly invited was one based on the appraisal by the baker of those beliefs themselves, not their legality.

Baking a cake for a gay marriage is not the same as baking a cake celebrating the beheading of aid workers. Gay marriage is legal, and beheading people isn't.

You are focusing on this difference, which is immaterial to the question and point made (would a baker refuse to accept an order for an IS cake due to the customer's beliefs), for justifying your lack of response. It is, very clearly, a strawman.

"Invitation to Treat" didn't save the B&B owners that were ruled against in the Supreme Court because they refused to do business with a homosexual couple. This isn't without precedent.

Did the B&B owners refuse to do accommodate the homosexual couple, or were the B&B owners happy to accommodate them but refusing to celebrate their marriage? Compare apples with apples, would you?

I am not familiar with this or any other trade law, what I am familiar with is the fact that discrimination law trumps this sort of case.

 

If I run a fish and chips in Pagehall and I refuse to serve Roma people I will be liable to a court case.

 

(Edit: I took over a school library that refused to serve Moroccan children, I know what happened in court in the Netherlands, this does of course not necessarily translate to the UK).

AFAIcan tell from the article, the baker has not refused the custom because the customers are homosexuals, he has refused the custom because of the nature of the custom. Makes a bit of a difference in Court. See also the above B&B-related comment. Edited November 7, 2014 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon]

Leviticus 18:22

 

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. "

 

Leviticus 20:13

 

"f a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

Just saying..anyone can cherry pick...

 

I would have more sympathy for Christians that used Leviticus as a justification for opposing homosexuality if they also followed the rest of Leviticus.

[SavannahP]

But they didn't (and who would they making cakes for - just single people?!?!). People like these are idiots of the highest order. You can't discriminate as a business. End of story. You can ban someone for being violent or abusive, you can lose an order (that wouldn't have been a first in the history of cake makers accross the world) but no these halfwits think that unlike B and B owners etc who ban gay people etc they will win the day.

 

Well you won't dullards. You'll be landed with crushing legal fees and paying damages. Well done. Point proven. You're both bigoted AND stupid.

 

But in a free and tolerant society they be free to be as bigoted and stupid as they like otherwise it isn't a free and tolerant society.

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 16:49 ----------

 

If they asked someone to make a cake and they wouldn't, why didn't they go and find someone who would?

 

They did.......

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2014 at 16:53 ----------

 

Truman, I appreciate you are trying to make a point, so let's just cut to the chase: I hold the rights of equality over any other rights.

 

I don't care whether you are a dogging gay bartender who works as a priest on Sundays or a boy-touching imam with a drug-habit selling AK-47s on the Dark Net. For me you are a human being and you should be subject to exactly the same law and societal forces as everybody else.

 

Only if we achieve that can we claim to have reached Utopia.

 

But forcing people to comply with something they disagree with will never be utopia.

[Halibut]

But in a free and tolerant society they be free to be as bigoted and stupid as they like otherwise it isn't a free and tolerant society.

 

You seem to be forgetting the all important distinction between beliefs - i.e. what people think - and actions, which people take.

 

Thus you, for example, could believe that homosexuality is an appalling perversion and that all homosexuals are paedophiles and shouldn't be tolerated.

You're free to believe that and free to tell others that that is what you believe.

However, if you abuse homosexuals or discriminate against them in the course of your business, or assault them or incite others to do so you're breaking the law and will face the consequences.

 

Being a tolerant nation does not mean we should tolerate intolerance.