Bakery refuses to make "gay cake"; faces legal action
Scroll to see replies
It doesn't seem clear to me that they refused service because of the customer's sexuality. If the customer had been ordering a normal cake and said, "oh and just so you know, I'm gay," I doubt the bakery would have refused the order. It's not customer discrimination, it's order discrimination - I think they should be allowed to refuse to bake that cake the same as if the order had been for a cake that said "Stealing is fun" or some other statement the bakery had a moral objection to.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I'm not personally religious. I just don't think the bakery was discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexuality.
You're missing the point - there is no actual scriptural basis in Christianity for an anti-gay attitude. Therefore the bakery should not have refused to make the cake.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
No a (once active and open) Bi-Sexual White(irish) Male with disabilities.
I simply support business owner rights to extreme degrees.
I simply support business owner rights to extreme degrees.
Then you would be OK with
But the law is against you so unless you get the the law changed you are wrong.
Original post by Radicalathiest
Then you would be OK with
Heh I was actually thinking of that sign as I wrote the reply.
But yes I would be.
But the law is against you so unless you get the the law changed you are wrong.
Nice to know the law is Objectively correct, im sure that will settle a few age old philosophical questions.
That's a dangerous way to think though, go back fifty years and you would be supporting Jewish Genocide with that worldview.
You don't really have a leg to stand on in most of your anti-islamic debates either if that's the view you take.
Original post by Mazzini
Yes, they should be sued. There is no scriptural basis for homophobia and the like in the Bible.
But if there were they shouldn't be sued?
What's the Bible got to do with the law of the land?
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Heh I was actually thinking of that sign as I wrote the reply.
But yes I would be.
But yes I would be.
We'll on your behalf and on behalf of all the Irish that were discrimintated against and all the people of colour and all the people with disabilities I'm rather glad the law is the way it is
as I'm sure are they.
I disagree with their actions. They should have taken the order and got their money and moved on. They're a business and I think they got too personal. They provide a service and should have provided it.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Heh I was actually thinking of that sign as I wrote the reply.
But yes I would be.
Nice to know the law is Objectively correct, im sure that will settle a few age old philosophical questions.
That's a dangerous way to think though, go back fifty years and you would be supporting Jewish Genocide with that worldview.
You don't really have a leg to stand on in most of your anti-islamic debates either if
that's the view you take.
But yes I would be.
Nice to know the law is Objectively correct, im sure that will settle a few age old philosophical questions.
That's a dangerous way to think though, go back fifty years and you would be supporting Jewish Genocide with that worldview.
You don't really have a leg to stand on in most of your anti-islamic debates either if
that's the view you take.
You advocate people being excluded based on factors beyond their control?
Original post by anonymouspie227
You advocate people being excluded based on factors beyond their control?
I advocate a business owners right to serve whoever they like or not serve for whatever reason, whether that reason by religious, political or ideological in nature
It's a free market, there are plenty of Cake Designers who will make their cake and make it in whatever manner they like, whether that be supporting Gay Marriage or supporting the extermination of the Jewish race.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by anonymouspie227
You advocate people being excluded based on factors beyond their control?
It's not factors beyond their control though that are the issue here. The bakers did not refuse to bake the cake because the customers were gay, they refused to bake the cake because they didn't agree with what was going to be written on it.
Original post by Mazzini
You're missing the point - there is no actual scriptural basis in Christianity for an anti-gay attitude. Therefore the bakery should not have refused to make the cake.
Just because someone's beliefs are silly and unfounded doesn't alter the fact that they are legitimate and honestly-held beliefs.
You can't just go around telling people that their religious opinions are wrong and that they ought to believe something else, unfortunately.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Yet numerous web-hosting companies and web-designers have refused to work for or host white-supremacists site Stormfront and other related groups.
Probably because their profits would be hugely affected as a result, which comes under the legal reasons for denying service someone mentioned above.
Baking a cake that says "support gay marriage" is not going to put your cake making business in jeopardy.
Building the website for the KKK, however, almost certainly will.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Rinsed
Just because someone's beliefs are silly and unfounded doesn't alter the fact that they are legitimate and honestly-held beliefs.
You can't just go around telling people that their religious opinions are wrong and that they ought to believe something else, unfortunately.
You can't just go around telling people that their religious opinions are wrong and that they ought to believe something else, unfortunately.
The bakery owners are free to believe whatever they like, they just can't let their bigotry influence their business practices in a discriminatory way. The law that makes their discrimination illegal does not make the discriminatory belief itself illegal.
Original post by betaglucowhat
The bakery owners are free to believe whatever they like, they just can't let their bigotry influence their business practices in a discriminatory way. The law that makes their discrimination illegal does not make the discriminatory belief itself illegal.
What illegal discrimination did the cake shop show?
Original post by Mazzini
You're missing the point - there is no actual scriptural basis in Christianity for an anti-gay attitude. Therefore the bakery should not have refused to make the cake.
What makes you think that they were being anti-gay?
Original post by limetang
It's not factors beyond their control though that are the issue here. The bakers did not refuse to bake the cake because the customers were gay, they refused to bake the cake because they didn't agree with what was going to be written on it.
And the law did not prohibit gay people from getting married because they were gay, it stopped any two people of the same sex from getting married whether they were gay or straight. Gay people were still free to marry people of the opposite sex and straight people could not marry people of the same sex.
Note that this is an actual argument used by bigots to defend gay marriage bans as nondiscriminatory, and the same argument people are using in this thread to support discriminatory business practices.
If a blanket prohibition or action that applies to everyone only really affects a subset of the population that shares a protected character then it is discriminatory.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
What illegal discrimination did the cake shop show?
If a blanket prohibition or action that, when applied to everyone, only really affects a subset of the population that shares a protected character then it is discriminatory.
It's the same as gay marriage itself; gay individuals were never unable to get married because of their sexuality, but any two people of the same sex were unable to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. Straight men couldn't marry straight men, while gay men could freely marry gay women. While a gay marriage ban is applied to everyone equally, it only really affects gay people, and it is discriminatory.
Refusing to take orders that celebrate gay marriage primarily affects gay customers, it is discriminatory, and it is illegal.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Radicalathiest
Then you would be OK with
But the law is against you so unless you get the the law changed you are wrong.
But the law is against you so unless you get the the law changed you are wrong.
Neither Three Mile Sprint nor I would necessarily agree with what the sign is saying, but we would be perfectly OK with the owners' right to have the sign. And, even if they legally could, in this day and age few shop owners would be ballsy enough to have a sign like that.
The law does not decide right and wrong. It's supposed to work the other way around. In this instance, we believe the law is misguided and needs amending.
Original post by betaglucowhat
The bakery owners are free to believe whatever they like, they just can't let their bigotry influence their business practices in a discriminatory way. The law that makes their discrimination illegal does not make the discriminatory belief itself illegal.
I'm fully aware of that, but again only specific forms of discrimination are made illegal. If I were bigoted against ugly people, say, then I could discriminate against them in my shop to my heart's content.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Tesco Flexi Contract
- If you were given 1 million pounds to set up a business, what would it be and why?
- Is jaffa cake a cake or biscuit?
- Can Muslims practice criminal law
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- An inspector calls
- accounting
- How to get 9 in GCSE English literature...
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- Struggle and emergency with my student accomodation
- Did I muck things up?
- 5 careers for Law Graduates
- Twin block braces
- Please Grade my essay - English Lit GCSE
- temporary traffic lights
- An Inspector Calls
- Car Insurance Fraud? Who to contact and what to do?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
