Bakery refuses to make &quot;gay cake&quot;; faces legal action

This is at base however quite a sinister case. It doesn't take a genius to see this was a setup, nor does it take one to actually see who the bad guys are in this case (and no, of course I'm not saying that gay people are bad people, but the select ones in this case are a different story).

Reply 282

Original post by limetang

Their discrimination was not based upon the belief of the person ordering the cake but on the cake on question. They would have not been denied service if they ordered a cake that simply said "happy birthday dave" on it. They were ordering a product that the bakery wouldn't sell to anybody... They were treat equally as customers.

An analogous situation would be a political one. Would it be illegal if an swp printer refused to print leaflets for a ukip election campaign?

Or perhaps one of more relavence. Let's suppose I went to a gay baker and asked them to make a cake with the words "gay marriage is wrong" on it, am I now right in thinking I can take them to court if they refuse?

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic. Homophobia isn't.

Reply 283

username521617

17

Original post by Saoirse:3

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic. Homophobia isn't.

Not for a cake it isn't. Remember, it's the cake being refused; not the customer.

Reply 284

Original post by Saoirse:3

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic. Homophobia isn't.

Again. They weren't being refused service because they were gay, they were being refused service because of the product they tried to order. If I'm not making the position clear do say.

A straight person could have gone to the same bakery made the same order and they would have been told no.

Also as a quick aside kindly borrowed from another poster on your side of the argument

"Section 14 of the Equality Act

Denial of goods and services

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.

(2)The relevant protected characteristics are—

(a)age;

(b)disability;

(c)gender reassignment;

(d)race

(e)religion or belief;

(f)sex;

(g)sexual orientation. "

Rightly or wrongly it would turn out that homophobia is in fact a protected characteristic ... taken in good faith that this was originally posted as an accurate portrayal of what the equality acts says.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 285

Original post by limetang

Again. They weren't being refused service because they were gay, they were being refused service because of the product they tried to order. If I'm not making the position clear do say.

A straight person could have gone to the same bakery made the same order and they would have been told no.

Also as a quick aside kindly borrowed from another poster on your side of the argument

"Section 14 of the Equality Act

Denial of goods and services

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.

(2)The relevant protected characteristics are—

(a)age;

(b)disability;

(c)gender reassignment;

(d)race

(e)religion or belief;

(f)sex;

(g)sexual orientation. "

Rightly or wrongly it would turn out that homophobia is in fact a protected characteristic ... taken in good faith that this was originally posted as an accurate portrayal of what the equality acts says.

If they had asked for a cake saying "support marriage", would it have been refused? I think not. The bit they object to is the "gay" part. Considering the majority of the demand for cakes celebrating gay marriages is likely to be gay and vice-versa, they are effectively refusing to sell a certain product - cakes in support of marriage - to couples of the same sex, which is discrimination on the basis of sexuality. If you want to not sell marriage-related products to gay people, you can't sell them to straight people, either - they have a right to equal treatment.

Reply 286

Original post by limetang

Again. They weren't being refused service because they were gay, they were being refused service because of the product they tried to order. If I'm not making the position clear do say.

A straight person could have gone to the same bakery made the same order and they would have been told no.

Also as a quick aside kindly borrowed from another poster on your side of the argument

"Section 14 of the Equality Act

Denial of goods and services

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.

(2)The relevant protected characteristics are—

(a)age;

(b)disability;

(c)gender reassignment;

(d)race

(e)religion or belief;

(f)sex;

(g)sexual orientation. "

Rightly or wrongly it would turn out that homophobia is in fact a protected characteristic ... taken in good faith that this was originally posted as an accurate portrayal of what the equality acts says.

That exists to protect people, not corporations. And a 'belief' does not included one acted upon in an illegal manner, such as discrimination against those of a certain sexuality. You can believe what you like about homosexuality, but you can't discriminate against homosexuals because of it.

Reply 287

Original post by Dandaman1

Not for a cake it isn't. Remember, it's the cake being refused; not the customer.

See above. The gay customer wishing to support his right to marriage is being treated unfairly compared to a straight customer wishing to support their right to marriage, unless they would also refuse a cake saying "Hooray for Marriage" or something.

Reply 288

JayJay-C19

So many people get so deep when they respond to things like this: "oh so you think government slavery is okay then"? No, it's a cake and they're rejecting someone the right to have a cake because they love a man? Why do I think it's just insane. They love a man so what? Why do people even care who feels what. They should have legal action taken against them yes because it is black and white, plain as the nose on anyones face, discrimination that people do not deserve. They need to grow up. It isn't propaganda or supporting a cause you don't agree with it's just called being a decent, grown up person with some common courtesy. Not everything has to be so political and has to have a pure definition. It's sometimes just as simple as, "they're being idiots".

Reply 289

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Saoirse:3

Considering the majority of the demand for cakes celebrating gay marriages is likely to be gay and vice-versa, they are effectively refusing to sell a certain product - cakes in support of marriage - to couples of the same sex, which is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

As far as I can see, they are refusing to sell a certain product to anyone. You can't seriously think that the owners of the cake shop enquired about the customer's sexuality (especially since the order was taken by staff behind the desk, and then it was top-level management that decided not to complete the order at a later stage).

If you want to not sell marriage-related products to gay people, you can't sell them to straight people, either - they have a right to equal treatment.

This really makes very little sense. They are refusing to sell homosexual marriage-related products to anyone - everyone is being treated equally (presumably - obviously if it turned out that they were happy to sell a pro same-sex marriage cake to a heterosexual customer, then I'd change my opinion, but I somehow don't think that's very likely).

Reply 290

Original post by Chief Wiggum

As far as I can see, they are refusing to sell a certain product to anyone. You can't seriously think that the owners of the cake shop enquired about the customer's sexuality (especially since the order was taken by staff behind the desk, and then it was top-level management that decided not to complete the order at a later stage).

This really makes very little sense. They are refusing to sell homosexual marriage-related products to anyone - everyone is being treated equally (presumably - obviously if it turned out that they were happy to sell a pro same-sex marriage cake to a heterosexual customer, then I'd change my opinion, but I somehow don't think that's very likely).

That's missing the point. In a legal sense, we don't have 'gay marriage' and 'straight marriage'. We just have marriage, which is now open to couples of the same sex. So the issue here is that by refusing to sell a cake to a gay person which supports his right to marry, they are acting unfairly towards him unless they also refused to sell a cake to a straight person supporting their
right to (straight) marriage. They have refused to make a product condoning his right to marry, because he would wish to marry another man. If a straight man requested a cake condoning his right to marry, the request would be accepted. They are therefore discriminating against the gay customer.

Reply 291

Radicalathiest

5

Original post by Chief Wiggum

People have explained to you repeatedly why you are incorrect here.

The person wasn't discriminated against because of his belief - if he'd supported gay marriage but ordered a plain chocolate cake, would the shop have refused to produce it?

They have tried to explain why they think I'm incorrect but I know this is the part of the legislation that the Equality commission is referring to as apart of the the case

So if you think you know better than them fair enough but I'm going to wait to see that the final outcome is

He was prevented form expressing a perfectly acceptable belief because the shop owners do not support the belief, this is the crux of the issue.

Reply 292

Radicalathiest

5

Original post by limetang

Or perhaps one of more relavence. Let's suppose I went to a gay baker and asked them to make a cake with the words "gay marriage is wrong" on it, am I now right in thinking I can take them to court if they refuse?

See my answer to CW

But yes I believe given current legislation there would be a case to answer (this would be similar to the shop owner who refused to serve a BNP member).

Reply 293

nexttime

22

As has no doubt been said, this is not discrimination and the precedent it would create would be completely untenable. It will be struck down.

I hope the couple take a hit on their revenue as a result of their short-sightedness though.

Reply 294

Maker

20

Original post by limetang

Again. They weren't being refused service because they were gay, they were being refused service because of the product they tried to order. If I'm not making the position clear do say.

A straight person could have gone to the same bakery made the same order and they would have been told no.

Also as a quick aside kindly borrowed from another poster on your side of the argument

"Section 14 of the Equality Act

Denial of goods and services

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics.

(2)The relevant protected characteristics are—

(a)age;

(b)disability;

(c)gender reassignment;

(d)race

(e)religion or belief;

(f)sex;

(g)sexual orientation. "

Rightly or wrongly it would turn out that homophobia is in fact a protected characteristic ... taken in good faith that this was originally posted as an accurate portrayal of what the equality acts says.

I think belief is far too wide and vague to use a defence in this case. For example, I could believe Irish people are far more likely to get drunk and refuse to serve them despite the fact they are sober when they arrive at my pub. I don't think that is going to persuade a court its OK to refuse service to all Irish people.

Reply 295

Blue-Shoes

1

That bakery deserves to go into administration for such hostility.

Reply 296

username1258398

Original post by Saoirse:3

That's missing the point. In a legal sense, we don't have 'gay marriage' and 'straight marriage'. We just have marriage, which is now open to couples of the same sex. So the issue here is that by refusing to sell a cake to a gay person which supports his right to marry, they are acting unfairly towards him unless they also refused to sell a cake to a straight person supporting their
right to (straight) marriage. They have refused to make a product condoning his right to marry, because he would wish to marry another man. If a straight man requested a cake condoning his right to marry, the request would be accepted. They are therefore discriminating against the gay customer.

If "gay marriage" is a meaningless term*, then the couple should not have asked for "support gay marriage" on their cake. They should have requested a cake saying "support marriage", which I'm sure the bakers would have been fine with. The bakery isn't refusing to make cakes for gay customers, it's refusing to make cakes that support gay marriage for ANY customers.

*But we all know that most people do think of marriage in terms of "gay" and "straight" (regardless of whether it should or should not happen), so it's really not.

Reply 297

Original post by Maker

I think belief is far too wide and vague to use a defence in this case. For example, I could believe Irish people are far more likely to get drunk and refuse to serve them despite the fact they are sober when they arrive at my pub. I don't think that is going to persuade a court its OK to refuse service to all Irish people.

I wasn't referring to it as a defence I was referring to it as a means of prosecution for the hypothetical person who opposed same sex marriage against the hypothetical gay baker refusing to make them a cake saying "gay marriage is wrong"

Reply 298