Christian bakery loses gay cake appeal

Really dont want to.

They have the superpower of making kids but they choose to be a shtty dude who can only do 1 pull up.

It's not a couple that asked for the cake. It's a local gay rights activist who wanted them to bake a 'make gay marriage legal' cake.

Did you really just say it was just a concept?? What an idiot, they discriminated because they refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding, it's that simple, a man and a woman can have their cake and eat it, but a gay couple can't.

if you don't like a 'concept' that's your issue you can't discriminate through your business. Replace gay with interracial and tell me it wouldn't be discrimination if a white guy and his Asian girlfriend were refused a wedding cake, but two white people were allowed!



Posted from TSR Mobile

Discrimination legislation really needs to be looked at again. Personally I would start by exempting any company with a turnover of less than, say, £5 million from it entirely.

Again, you've sidestepped the question. Sexual orientation was not discriminated against here. If anything was discriminated against it was political belief. I'll ask again, if a Christian went to a bakery owned by a "progressive" and aksed them to make a cake saying "support traditional marriage" I assume you'd also be consistent and be of the view that they should be compelled to make such a cake, right?

Wouldn't that exempt lots of charities, possibly leading to some unpleasant outcomes?

You could easily deal with charities separately if that's your issue. We already make charitable status subject to abiding by requirements that don't apply to private, profit-seeking companies, which is really what I was talking about.

Sexual orientation is clearly the reason for opposing anything to do with gay marriage.

If you read my posts you would know the answer, and see you have no clue what you are talking about.

They should exempt businesses that uses a lot of flour and icing sugar but not currants.

Let's beat this very dead horse some more. If a straight person had gone into that bakery, asked for the same thing and had been refused how, in any sense was that discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The person who made that order wasn't gay, so how on earth was he discriminated against based upon his sexual orientation?

This is why the decision baffles me. I mean, I get that I'm just some idiot off the street with no legal training, but this literally seems so obvious to me, that I'm really confused about why the judges seem to disagree...

Direct Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation

The relevant legislation essentially contains a single question: Did the claimant, on the prescribed ground, receive less favourable treatment than others.

The case of Bull v Hall [2013] UKSC 73 was a case in which the Supreme Court had to deal with the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The respondents were civil partners who booked a double bedroom for two nights in a private hotel. The hoteliers were devout Christians and declined to honour the booking as they only provided double bedrooms to heterosexual married couples. The majority concluded that the concept of marriage being applied by the appellants was the Christian concept of the union of one man and one woman, a criterion indistinguishable from sexual orientation. The discrimination was therefore direct in that the difference in treatment was based on a criterion which is either explicitly that of sex or necessarily linked to a characteristic indissociable from sex.

Counsel for the appellants in this case submitted that in order to establish direct discrimination it was necessary to establish some protected personal characteristic and that such a characteristic could not be established by a difference in treatment in respect of a message on a cake.

We do not accept this. The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message “Support Heterosexual Marriage” or indeed “Support Marriage”. We accept that it was the use of the word “Gay” in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination.

This is why the decision baffles me. I mean, I get that I'm just some idiot off the street with no legal training, but this literally seems so obvious to me, that I'm really confused about why the judges seem to disagree...[/QUOTE

So what you are saying is judges disagree with someone who knows nothing about the law and nothing about this case and you are surprised by that? Really?

There's a summary of the judgment here.



(Emphasis in original)

Personally I think the second sentence of the bold bit is totally fallacious, for all the same reasons everyone else is giving. Perhaps they reason it out more fully in the judgment, but I haven't bothered to look it up as of yet.

I've read your posts. But I guess the problem of having no clue what I'm talking about explains why reading your posts doesn't really seem to have shown me a convincing reason as to why I'm wrong, I'm clearly just too dumb to understand.

Let's beat this very dead horse some more. If a straight person had gone into that bakery, asked for the same thing and had been refused how, in any sense was that discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The person who made that order wasn't gay, so how on earth was he discriminated against based upon his sexual orientation?

Motive.

Not my problem if you cannot comprehend that.

Which shouldn't particularly make any difference when it comes to this case, seeing how my whole point is that they were not discriminating against somebody as a result of their sexual orientation. My entire point is that you cannot be guilty of discrimination here when anybody of any sexual orientation could have done the same thing and would have been denied service just as this man was.