'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheArtofProtest
The trial judge applied the law incorrectly in this case.
The court made an absurd decision and that's why it's on appeal and I have to say, much as I dislike the decision, they will win.
The court made an absurd decision and that's why it's on appeal and I have to say, much as I dislike the decision, they will win.
Your certainty makes me giggle. Let's see then
Original post by chazwomaq
OK, your definition of objectivity sounds like my definition of subjectivity.
No I'm not OK on that. That's discrimination against somebody based on a protected characteristic. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, this case is arguably (IMO obviously) about what the cake said, not who ordered it.
Surely a publisher refusing to publish is literally refusing service. The only question is why.
I disagree. The key test is whether you would treat others the same. If you refuse to publish holocaust denial material from anyone, you're being consistent, and that's fine. If you only refuse to publish it if written by single, Asian men, you're discriminating and that's wrong and illegal.
As it happens, I think supporting ISIS should be legal, much as it is a horrible ideology. I think UK hate speech laws get too authoritarian at times. Only when it is very close to inciting a crime should it be criminalized (e.g. publishing a Facebook post arranging to meet at a certain time or place to murder someone).
No I'm not OK on that. That's discrimination against somebody based on a protected characteristic. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, this case is arguably (IMO obviously) about what the cake said, not who ordered it.
Surely a publisher refusing to publish is literally refusing service. The only question is why.
I disagree. The key test is whether you would treat others the same. If you refuse to publish holocaust denial material from anyone, you're being consistent, and that's fine. If you only refuse to publish it if written by single, Asian men, you're discriminating and that's wrong and illegal.
As it happens, I think supporting ISIS should be legal, much as it is a horrible ideology. I think UK hate speech laws get too authoritarian at times. Only when it is very close to inciting a crime should it be criminalized (e.g. publishing a Facebook post arranging to meet at a certain time or place to murder someone).
We are talking about the law here. It's not your regular meaning of subjective and objective. You can search it up on any legal related website. Of course it requires discretion by the court. The issue is whether the mindset of the defendant is relevant or not.
I disagree. You can't separate the two, in my opinion. A pro gay marriage obviously refers to homosexuals themselves, don't you think?
And I vastly disagree with your last point. Supporting a terrorist organization which threatens the natural security of the country should not be allowed under any circumstances, even if it makes the state authoritarian. If you were to allow it, you may as well let them travel there and join the group itself.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chazwomaq
I disagree. The key test is whether you would treat others the same. If you refuse to publish holocaust denial material from anyone, you're being consistent, and that's fine. If you only refuse to publish it if written by single, Asian men, you're discriminating and that's wrong and illegal.
I disagree. The key test is whether you would treat others the same. If you refuse to publish holocaust denial material from anyone, you're being consistent, and that's fine. If you only refuse to publish it if written by single, Asian men, you're discriminating and that's wrong and illegal.
The problem is this doesn't work in the context of the legislation.
The court found for the claimants on a number of separate bases.
The primary finding that there was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation seems to involve an error of law in that it confuses the holders of the message with the message. If I refuse to bake a cake because the customers are gay, that is clearly direct discrimination. If I refuse to bake a cake because I do not like the message regardless of who writes it, the fact that I know the customer is gay and thus has a protected characteristic should be irrelevant. The court found to the contrary and I can't see how that is right.
However the court also found that the bakery had directly discriminated on grounds of political belief. That is fundamentally different, because there can't be a rational distinction between the messenger and the message. With a few trivial exceptions (eg a props man commissioning a cake for a film) commissioning a cake with a political message is the same as holding the belief expressed in that message. That means it would be discriminatory to refuse to bake a cake containing any political message unless the baker would refuse to bake cakes which expressed or implied support for any holder of a different opinion on the subject of the rejected cake. For example the baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake containing a CND logo, if he would bake a cake celebrating Mr Smith's year as Treasurer of the Newry branch of the Democratic Unionist Party. I can't refuse to bake a cake desired by a unilateralist if I am prepared to accept the custom of a multilateralist. The fact the multilateralist's cake would say nothing about nuclear disarmament is irrelevant.
Accordingly the bakery discriminates on political grounds against the people seeking a pro-gay marriage cake if they would accept the custom of someone opposed to gay marriage for an "on your retirement" cake.
The court also decided that there was indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If proportionately more gay people than straight people support gay marriage, then it is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation to refuse to bake a cake supporting gay marriage. The court decided that such discrimination was not objectively justified.
Original post by *Stefan*
I disagree. You can't separate the two, in my opinion. A pro gay marriage obviously refers to homosexuals themselves, don't you think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I disagree. You can't separate the two, in my opinion. A pro gay marriage obviously refers to homosexuals themselves, don't you think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Sure you can. The (straight) parents of one of the grooms might order a gay cake. The bakery might refuse. Therefore it can't be discriminating because the customers are gay.
Original post by nulli tertius
The primary finding that there was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation seems to involve an error of law
The primary finding that there was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation seems to involve an error of law
I agree.
However the court also found that the bakery had directly discriminated on grounds of political belief.
Yes, as I wrote earlier in this thread, NI has this peculiar law which muddies the waters. I still think there might be grounds to make a distinction between the customer's beliefs and the published message (e.g. refusing to make a cake for a republican = wrong IMO, but refusing to bake a pro-republican cake [for whoever] might not be).
The court also decided that there was indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If proportionately more gay people than straight people support gay marriage, then it is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation to refuse to bake a cake supporting gay marriage. The court decided that such discrimination was not objectively justified.
Again, I think this is just an error. Anyone who considers the publisher refusing to publish an offensive message should see that. So comparatively more Christians than Jews deny the holocaust. To say that you can only refuse something that a representative proportion of male+female, gay+straight, different religions, etc. etc. agree with is ridiculous and unworkable.
Oh, great. Any sensitive entitled homosexual can just walk into any bakery and demand a cake that may go against the baker's belief and sue for if the baker refuses on his or her property. I'm starting to think these people do their homework before they ask for gay wedding cakes. Its all about the money and entitlement. These people have the time and money to order a gay wedding cake but not enough time to go to another bakery. These people have money and time to lawyer up and holler for a judge but none to go the next nearest bakery who will say yes. Silly silly me, who thought bakeries were private owned business. Well at least that what I'm told but all these lawsuits make me question that. Are bakeries private owned businesses in the UK? I always thought it was in the USA, not sure bout UK and hearing these lawsuits aren't anything new to me. I didn't know bakeries were scarce!
Bakers are allowed to refused any cake if they don't want to bake it but a gay wedding cake?
Someone get the judge, call 911 and arrest this baker! Discrimination!
Person who sued baker becomes rich and buys a wedding cake with the money they "stolen" while the baker they sued is out of a job and business is closed. Justice served! Moral of the story is bakers should shut up and bake the cakes they're told. Bakers do not have the right to refuse cake on their own property they work hard to make.
By the way, gays are not gay wedding cakes. Bakers are capable of making gay wedding cakes not gay people. So, is it really discrimination to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake considering the baker isn't refusing based on the customer's preferences but the symbol the cake represents?
I can't wait for Halloween! I'll dress like a LGBT activist, demand a gay wedding cake from a baker I know will say no, then sue! I'll be super duper rich in three easy steps!
Bakers are allowed to refused any cake if they don't want to bake it but a gay wedding cake?
Someone get the judge, call 911 and arrest this baker! Discrimination!
Person who sued baker becomes rich and buys a wedding cake with the money they "stolen" while the baker they sued is out of a job and business is closed. Justice served! Moral of the story is bakers should shut up and bake the cakes they're told. Bakers do not have the right to refuse cake on their own property they work hard to make.
By the way, gays are not gay wedding cakes. Bakers are capable of making gay wedding cakes not gay people. So, is it really discrimination to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake considering the baker isn't refusing based on the customer's preferences but the symbol the cake represents?
I can't wait for Halloween! I'll dress like a LGBT activist, demand a gay wedding cake from a baker I know will say no, then sue! I'll be super duper rich in three easy steps!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chazwomaq
Sure you can. The (straight) parents of one of the grooms might order a gay cake. The bakery might refuse. Therefore it can't be discriminating because the customers are gay.
I don't get this post. Did you miss "not" before "gay"?
It would still be discrimination. I'm not referring to the individual per se, I'm referring to differing treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals. That doesn't have to be directly linked to a specific homosexual.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
I don't get this post. Did you miss "not" before "gay"?
Because the parents are not gay in this case, the bakery cannot be discriminating on the basis that they are gay.
It would still be discrimination. I'm not referring to the individual per se, I'm referring to differing treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals. That doesn't have to be directly linked to a specific homosexual.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think it does have to be linked to an individual. Unless you're bringing a class action or something. The legal processes is all about proving how a specific individual(s) has been affected.
Original post by Macy1998
Oh, great. Any sensitive entitled homosexual can just walk into any bakery and demand a cake that may go against the baker's belief and sue for if the baker refuses on his or her property. I'm starting to think these people do their homework before they ask for gay wedding cakes. Its all about the money and entitlement. These people have the time and money to order a gay wedding cake but not enough time to go to another bakery. These people have money and time to lawyer up and holler for a judge but none to go the next nearest bakery who will say yes. Silly silly me, who thought bakeries were private owned business. Well at least that what I'm told but all these lawsuits make me question that. Are bakeries private owned businesses in the UK? I always thought it was in the USA, not sure bout UK and hearing these lawsuits aren't anything new to me. I didn't know bakeries were scarce!
Bakers are allowed to refused any cake if they don't want to bake it but a gay wedding cake?
Someone get the judge, call 911 and arrest this baker! Discrimination!
Person who sued baker becomes rich and buys a wedding cake with the money they "stolen" while the baker they sued is out of a job and business is closed. Justice served! Moral of the story is bakers should shut up and bake the cakes they're told. Bakers do not have the right to refuse cake on their own property they work hard to make.
By the way, gays are not gay wedding cakes. Bakers are capable of making gay wedding cakes not gay people. So, is it really discrimination to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake considering the baker isn't refusing based on the customer's preferences but the symbol the cake represents?
I can't wait for Halloween! I'll dress like a LGBT activist, demand a gay wedding cake from a baker I know will say no, then sue! I'll be super duper rich in three easy steps!
Bakers are allowed to refused any cake if they don't want to bake it but a gay wedding cake?
Someone get the judge, call 911 and arrest this baker! Discrimination!
Person who sued baker becomes rich and buys a wedding cake with the money they "stolen" while the baker they sued is out of a job and business is closed. Justice served! Moral of the story is bakers should shut up and bake the cakes they're told. Bakers do not have the right to refuse cake on their own property they work hard to make.
By the way, gays are not gay wedding cakes. Bakers are capable of making gay wedding cakes not gay people. So, is it really discrimination to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake considering the baker isn't refusing based on the customer's preferences but the symbol the cake represents?
I can't wait for Halloween! I'll dress like a LGBT activist, demand a gay wedding cake from a baker I know will say no, then sue! I'll be super duper rich in three easy steps!
Do you ever shut up?
I swear you're more active in the gay community than most homosexuals.
Seriously, I swear I've seen you make posts upon posts upon heaps of posts in every thread about something gay. Give it a rest, it's tedious and exhausting to read.
Slight exaggeration on the amount of posts, but point still stands, and hopefully point taken.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Macy1998
These people!
You use the term 'these' people rather a lot
I wounder how you would feel if the term 'these people' was used to refer to the black community.
But given the issue is about discrimination and I'm sure you could regale of of tales of discrimination I would have thought you'd have a little empathy
Original post by chazwomaq
Because the parents are not gay in this case, the bakery cannot be discriminating on the basis that they are gay.
I think it does have to be linked to an individual. Unless you're bringing a class action or something. The legal processes is all about proving how a specific individual(s) has been affected.
I think it does have to be linked to an individual. Unless you're bringing a class action or something. The legal processes is all about proving how a specific individual(s) has been affected.
The parents are representing a gay couple. That is fine of itself.
It's not about the action, it's about the precedents which affect the whole country instantly (provided they come from higher courts).
Original post by *Stefan*
it's about the precedents which affect the whole country instantly
No. Whatever the final result in this case, it is likely only to apply to Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Original post by *Stefan*
it's about the precedents which affect the whole country instantly (provided they come from higher courts).
I agree it's about the precedent. And the precedent I see is that people could bring lawsuits against publishers (including bakers!) who refuse to publish pro-bestiality, anti-gay-marriage, or holocaust denial material. In NI at least.
The bakery was not discriminating against the customers. I am sure that, even if a straight couple wanted them to bake a gay wedding cake (for whatever reason), they would refuse them because they are against writing the message, not the customers' sexuality.
If someone asked a baker to bake a cake with the ISIS flag on it, I am sure that most bakers would refuse because it goes against their views. What makes this any different?
If someone asked a baker to bake a cake with the ISIS flag on it, I am sure that most bakers would refuse because it goes against their views. What makes this any different?
Original post by Good bloke
No. Whatever the final result in this case, it is likely only to apply to Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Sorry didn't make it clear enough.
I was referring to precedents generally, as a common law principle, particularly through the Supreme Court which has final jurisdiction all over the UK (apart from Scottish Criminal Law).
In this particular example, yes.
Original post by chazwomaq
I agree it's about the precedent. And the precedent I see is that people could bring lawsuits against publishers (including bakers!) who refuse to publish pro-bestiality, anti-gay-marriage, or holocaust denial material. In NI at least.
I think your interpretation is too wide in this case. What you're describing will only happen if they give a general definition to the law itself which is applicable in all such circumstances. Otherwise, new cases would have to be brought as the case is different enough to warrant being distinguished in other situations.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BaconandSauce
You use the term 'these' people rather a lot
I wounder how you would feel if the term 'these people' was used to refer to the black community.
But given the issue is about discrimination and I'm sure you could regale of of tales of discrimination I would have thought you'd have a little empathy
I wounder how you would feel if the term 'these people' was used to refer to the black community.
But given the issue is about discrimination and I'm sure you could regale of of tales of discrimination I would have thought you'd have a little empathy
Well ya see "these people" can refer to any type of people ya know. Where did black people come into this? I guess that is the first thing that comes to your mind where the subject is gay wedding cakes, I guess..
I meant these entitled and whiny people who always need to throw a lawsuit over things that aren't even a big deal and that includes some gay customers ruining and destroying business over cakes. As if it is that serious. For a LGBT activist I thought it spent more time fighting inequality for gays yet he's throwing a lawsuit for a gay wedding cake which bakers are allowed to say no plus its private business. I think bakers who refuse to make gay wedding cakes are a minority. The baker didn't refuse him cake or pastries because he was gay but because he asked the baker to make a cake he wasn't comfortable with. That is all. Sounds petty.
I'm sure he could of drove to another bakery for a cake and that would of solve the dilemma of getting a wedding cake.
If i walk into a bakery and ask a baker to make a cake with something that goes against his beliefs or just plain distasteful I'll be refused. Not because I'm black or gay.
I will be praying for the dear couple.
I'm glad they have support from other Christians and also glad this has strengthened their relationship.
I'm glad they have support from other Christians and also glad this has strengthened their relationship.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Top 5 Coffee Places in Coventry
- Top 5 Coffee Places in Coventry
- Is jaffa cake a cake or biscuit?
- If you were given 1 million pounds to set up a business, what would it be and why?
- Anyone else here watch snooker?
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- gay/bi muslims
- Harvey Weinstein’s New York convictions quashed by state’s apex court
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- Applying through clearing with offer already firmed
- What's the best way to measure university ranking? WRONG ANSWERS ONLY
- Need help on maths foundation question Gcse
- Any good sci-fi books? :)
- OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Being gay at Loughborough University
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Has anyone been close to snapping/snapped at a teacher before?
- What London areas are dodgy to live in?
- What’s everyone’s favourite dessert?
- Great British Bake Off 2023 discussion thread
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
