Bakery refuses to make "gay cake"; faces legal action

in reality you'd be sending millions upon millions of thought criminals to gulags for re-education because they don't share your worldview, after first using cases like this as a "chilling effect" to silence people

Section 14

', A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.'

A (anti Pro Gay Message) treats B (Pro Gay Message) less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.'

Pro Gay Marriage would fall Under the part of E you cut off '(e)religion or belief

It is not againt the law to have the belief that pro gay marriage is acceptable and that belief is PROTECTED

also you are confusing respecting an opinion with prevent people from having their own in regards to the sales of goods act and the Equality ACT. You don't have to respect the pro gay marriage stance but you can't prevent others from having it and you can't deny them services because they do.

Yes I'll look forward to the ruling but I susspect this will be like the B&B case where I was told I was still wrong even though the law supported my stance

But it is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned

The shop owner does not get to pick and choose what he finds acceptable

and again the law is clear he would not be able to deny a cake for having a political message just because he disagrees with it

again please read

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

it will clear up your misunderstanding of the issue

Really interesting argument.

What are you views if a Muslim asked for a cake reading "Sharia law for the UK" or "Stone adulterous women to death" or a Christian asked for a cake reading "God hates fags" or a BNP member asked for a cake reading "You can't be black and British"?

The message is not offensive (just because it's pro gay does not mean it is offensive) and they were denied it because it was pro gay

This is against the equality act 2010 section 14

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/14

', A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.'

(a)age;

(b)disability;

(c)gender reassignment;

(d)race

(e)religion or belief;

(f)sex;

(g)sexual orientation.

1) How do you know they denied it because it was pro-gay?

2) Nothing in s.14 prohibits the bakers' conduct. This is the point I have been making from the outset. The legislation says that you cannot treat a gay person less favourably than you would someone who does not share that characteristic. The conduct in question was nothing to do with any of the customer's characteristics. The bakery did not refuse to serve him because he was gay, they refused to serve him because they did not agree with the message he wanted on the cake. Do you see that difference? It didn't matter whether he was straight, gay or bisexual, because what they took issue with was the cake, not him.

There is a clear distinction to be drawn between refusing to perform a service in favour of a cause you disagree with and refusing to do something in favour of a particular person because of characteristics which s/he has. You're right that the law seems fairly clear here, but it doesn't apply in the way that you think it does.

At what point do we stop tolerating intolerance in the name of religion? A line needs to be drawn.
These bakers have the right to refuse, however if it's on the basis of a sexuality they don't agree with because of their (backward) religious beliefs, that is somewhere close to if not over the line

It is discrimination and I think it's about time we stopped candidly accepting religious beliefs as a justification of or cover for backward intolerance.

I have zero sympathy for these bakery owners.

Pro Gay Marriage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

'"still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".'

'"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."'

as you have said (and I agree) this will be an interesting case but give what I know about how the law works they will lose this one as they will have discriminated against the couple.

I think you should be able to deny service to someone (i.e. you can make the choice to) but it doesn't mean I support it. They can suffer the publicity and loss of profits. But the fact is if you're opening a business and providing a service then you need to be prepared to serve people with lifestyles you don't agree with* as it's professional. Don't provide a service if you're going to let your prejudice cloud it.

* even though I can't see how someone could "disagree" with homosexuality.

I see what you did there. You equated a lack of willingness to promote the political homosexual "marriage" cause with "disagreeing" with homosexuality.

Erm if you disagree with gay marriage then you have issues with homosexuality... what other reasons are there?

all it is is allowing gays to marry, how is that controversial?

religion isn't an excuse to discriminate

I have to admit I don't set great store by your self-proclaimed legal knowledge, and I predict you will end up being wrong.

As stated before, gay marriage isn't even legal in NI. It would be perverse if it were declared illegal to not support something which is actually itself illegal anyway! Will the government prosecute itself next?

The concept of homosexual "marriage" was only invented a few years ago, what will it be mandatory to support next, just because the pink lobby demands it, on pains of calling you a homophobe if you don't?

because they're people as well and should have the same right to marry, who are your or any other religious person or someone who disagrees with it to say they can't marry? I can't see any reason why anyone would disagree with homosexual marriage unless they're a homophobe.

They already had the same rights as everyone else. They wanted the right to do something else and call it a "marriage" and imprison people who don't believe their arrangement is a marriage.