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

Scroll to see replies

True, but breaking a law a size-able amount of the population support just because you don't like it comes across as selfish and just as immoral.

So be it.

But laws are changed by challenging them and then promoting your cause.

Spoken like a true dictator, i'm guessing you would only allow certain people to vote etc. as well?

I wouldn't allow anyone to vote
Democracy is a weak system nothing but an illusion of power, scraps thrown to the population to satiate them.

But I know i'm not a leader, nor do I ever have any intention of being one I know myself well enough to know I enjoy following, so why theorize over how my dictatorship would run?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 181

thunder_chunky

Original post by thesabbath

What makes you think your religious doctrine which you preach in this thread should be exempted from "intolerance"? It isn't all that popular, which is why the State is trying to social engineer it.
I am delighted that the bakers are standing up for their own beliefs in the face of this liberal intolerance of differing opinions.

What religious doctrine?
Homosexuality and gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted, though admittedly the process is probably a bit slower in Northern Ireland for obvious reasons. That being said, I think there has to come a time when we stop being politically correct. I think we should stop tolerating intolerance by people who like to hide behind their centuries old scriptures and call it what it is. Backwards bigotry and homophobia. It's not social engineering, it's trying to stop discrimination.
Refusing someone based on religious beliefs is still discrimination even though that person(s) are using their ridiculously outdated beliefs to justify the judgement and discrimination of a person based on their sexuality.
You may be delighted that these people are sticking up for their own beliefs, but that's because you buy into the idea that people shouldn't be criticised or called out on their beliefs even when what they are doing is downright discrimination.
I don't mind religion up to a point, and this is pretty much that point. It's getting really old now.

Reply 182

Anonymous Coward

Original post by Tom_green_day

This is so stupid. They weren't refusing service because of the customer, they were refusing it because of the product. I completely understand the plight of the bakery and I am saddened by the way the law is being influenced to seem overly PC.

So many people seem unable to understand this.

Reply 183

Hariex

I think that they were within their rights. Endorsing homosexual marriage is, I feel, completely different to condemning homosexuality or homosexual acts. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a heterosexual to disagree with homosexual marriage. If they believe that the best environment for raising a child is with one of each parent then hey - who am I to judge? There is no right answer to how our children should be raised. They have a right to believe that a heterosexual pairing might prove to be a more stable environment.

However, if the baker had refused to sell a cake to a customer because of their homosexuality, I would certainly disagree.

Reply 184

CJKay

Original post by thesabbath

It is a "wedding cake", which has "support gay marriage" emblazoned on it. How can you even dare to claim it is not propaganda?

The world you propose sounds like hell on earth if you're using the force of the State to "achieve" it (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).

By the way, you mention blacks and asians sharing your utopia and guess what? They happen to be far more homophobic than the white indigenous population.

They are paid to bake cakes and decorate them according to somebody's specifications. Why is it any of their damn business what goes on other people's cakes if they are merely paid to make them?

Reply 185

trustmeimlying1

Original post by Radicalathiest

no irish:P
dont know what theyre missing eejits!P

Reply 186

c_al

Of course the bakery were in the right here. What the customer has done is similar to going to the tory party, and request that their campaigning involves supporting labour.

Reply 187

Helevorn

Discriminating based on political affiliation is illegal in Northern Ireland.

The legislation outlaws four types of discrimination which a person can complain about to a Fair Employment Tribunal. Direct discrimination is where someone is treated less favourably on the grounds of their religious belief and/or political opinion than another person in the same or similar situation. For example, the best person in a company was not given a promotion because of their religion while a less able person of a different religion was promoted. Direct discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion can include discrimination based on an employer's perception of a person’s religious belief or political opinion, even if that perception is incorrect.

Reply 188

TurboCretin

Original post by Marcum

You also support their right to refuse to serve black people, disabled people, people who wear mixed fibres and farmers who plant two species of crop next to each other?

Funnily enough, they could lawfully refuse service to these people.

Reply 189

Marcum

Original post by TurboCretin

Funnily enough, they could lawfully refuse service to these people.

Although it would be, and is, absurd to discriminate on such minuscule matters. Although I clearly cannot be certain and saying I can be is foolish, I doubt they would refuse service to these people.

Reply 190

DErasmus

Original post by thesabbath

You want Government-mandated slavery, in other words?

If homosexual lobbyists cannot separate their homosexual politics from their "sexuality" then that is their problem. No one should be forced by law to produce propaganda for a cause with which they do not agree.

this isnt ****ing nazi germany

put your gun away you paranoid twit

Reply 191

Mazzini

Original post by chazwomaq

What do people think of this story?

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

My two cents. As much as I support gay marriage and the equality act, I think the bakery is not guilty as it stands. I don't see that they've discriminated against the customer because of his or her sexual orientation, but because of the political cause. They could reasonably be assumed to refuse were the customer straight (indeed did they even know the customer's sexuality?).

What if the bakery were asked to make a cake for other political or moral stances. "Vote BNP" or "gays burn in hell" or something? I think they should be allowed to refuse to make cakes they don't like as long as they don't discriminate against their customers.

Yes, they should be sued. There is no scriptural basis for homophobia and the like in the Bible.

Reply 192

TurboCretin

Original post by Marcum

Although it would be, and is, absurd to discriminate on such minuscule matters. Although I clearly cannot be certain and saying I can be is foolish, I doubt they would refuse service to these people.

Yes, I doubt it as well. I just find it funny that business owners can legally discriminate on some arbitrary bases and not others.

Reply 193

tazarooni89

I don't think the cake shop has done anything wrong. In particular, they have not discriminated against the customer. They refused the order based on the type of product they were asked to create, not based on the sexual orientation of the customer. They would have refused that order even if the customer had been straight.

The article presents the following quote:

"Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve," Mr Muir said

However, businesses should be able to pick and choose what they sell.

What if a Muslim decided to sue a restaurant for religious discrimination because they don't sell Halal meat? What if a woman decided to sue a men's clothes shop for gender discrimination because they don't sell skirts?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 194

brownsugar-xx

I'm on the side of the bakery owners on this one. I'm totally for gay marriage and equality don't get me wrong - and for the b&b case i was against the b&b owners. But the difference here is it wasn't because the person was gay, it was because they wanted a cake with a pro-gay slogan. So i think since they're a private business they should be allowed to.

But then i started thinking, this can be applied to any business that does wedding services. Does this mean hotels can deny hosting gay weddings since it would be 'promoting' or 'encouraging' gay marriage? I don't know if you guys have ever watched My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but in many of the cases hotels they booked their wedding in for would call back and say 'sorry we're actually full then' when they found out they were gypsies. It would be the same for gays then, wouldn't it?

Reply 195

Chief Wiggum

As plenty of people have already pointed out very eloquently, the bakery owners weren't discriminating against the person based on his sexuality. If a straight person had requested the same cake, they still wouldn't have made it.

Reply 196

Jack XY

It's probably not a good idea to force a bakery to make a cake for you. Never **** with someone who prepares your food!

Reply 197

TurboCretin

Original post by CJKay

They are paid to bake cakes and decorate them according to somebody's specifications. Why is it any of their damn business what goes on other people's cakes if they are merely paid to make them?

It is literally their damn business.

Reply 198

Mazzini

Original post by Chief Wiggum

However, there is no basis in the Bible for an anti-gay or homophobic attitude. Find me verses/passages/quotes and I will argue my case.

Reply 199

TurboCretin

Original post by Theflyingbarney

I'm in two minds over the whole thing (as I was with the B&B case). On the one hand I'm staunchly in favour of homosexual rights, but at the same time I'm also staunchly in favour of the principle of contractual freedom which is just as, if not more, important. On balance here I'd probably be tempted to side in favour of forcing the bakery to make the cake, since the reasons they've given for refusing to do so are solely discriminatory in their basis. However, that makes it very difficult to draw an actual line as to when we can force someone to provide goods/services against their will, and certainly I don't think that businesses should be forced to serve anyone who asks them to. So personally I'd prefer to go with an approach of only forcing people to serve particular customers where their reasons for not doing so are solely on the basis of discrimination because of their own opinions, and not for any business reason.