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

And so can a Muslim cake shop owner refuse to print an image of Prophet Muhammad with a speech bubble saying he supports gay marriage, if requested to by a gay atheist?

The moment where the arbitrary lines collide into a maelstrom of hypocrisy . . .

Would you feel the same way if they had wanted the cake with message 'black and proud' and they were refused?

It depends on his reasoning. If his reasoning is "I don't want to print an image of Prophet Muhammed", then he can definitely refuse as there's no discrimination even related to the customer's sexuality, race etc there. Heck, I'm not even a Muslim but I'd refuse to print such an image.

It is discriminatory to his view as an atheist. I don't see why discriminating against gay people is worse than discriminating against non-Muslims/atheists.

It's good they face legal action. Sure, you may not agree with homosexuality, but at the end of the day, a customer is a customer, and refusing to serve them based on sexuality is a form of discrimination.

They didn't refuse to serve him based on his sexuality.

What??? Atheism is the belief there is no God. How exactly do you equate believing there is not God, with drawing the Prophet Mohammed?!

Because an atheist or non-Muslim has no opposition to depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Picture a scenario where a former strict Muslim whose sexuality was repressed has left the faith and now defines themselves as a gay atheist. To celebrate this, he wants to have a cake with a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad supporting gay marriage.

Are you going to tell him that he is not allowed to celebrate leaving what he feels to have been a restrictive faith with as much aplomb as finding his true sexuality? Not allowing him to have Prophet Muhammad depicted is just as discriminatory to his wishes and sense of being as not allowing him to have a pro-gay marriage message on it.

That's untrue. I'm a "non-Muslim", and I'd object to that because I see it as pointless and antagonistic. Plus, there's a difference between having a certain religious value, and simply the absence of one.

If this very specific person wants such a cake, and someone wants to make it for him, that's fine. However, that doesn't mean he's being discriminated against if someone doesn't want to make it for him. They're not saying or implying "I won't make this because you're gay", or "I won't make this because you're an atheist", or "I won't make this because you're not a Muslim" as you've demonstrated by the fact that you've had to create a very narrow example here rather than apply it to any of these groups in general. All they're saying is that they don't want to make such a cake, because they don't believe in depicting the Prophet Mohammed - which has no relation what so ever to any kind of racism or homophobia.

Similarly with the pro-gay marriage message, they're not discriminating against the customer because they're atheist, or they're gay, or they're black, or whatever. Anyone could come and ask for a pro-gay marriage message, and the Muslim cake-shop owner would feel similar unease at doing so. It has no relation whatsoever to racism/homophobia - it's not at all like the image people have in this thread of signs with 'no blacks, no Irish, no dogs'.

To clarify: if the cake-shop owner refused on the grounds of the customer's sexuality, that would be discrimination. Refusing because the message they want is incompatible with their faith is not discrimination, because ANYONE, even a fellow Muslim hypothetically, could ask for that message, and it would still be considered unIslamic. Whether that message is a pro-gay marriage slogan or a depiction of the Prophet makes no difference.

Legally at least it's got a much stronger argument, simply because the part they object to is the "gay" part. They don't oppose marriage, they just oppose gay people having the right to take part in it. Considering you can put all the religious stuff to one side since marriage is a legal institution in this country, opposing the right to a civil marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Now the legal argument is whether you can defend a homophobic position, without discriminating against gay customers - considering that a) that position is impacting their decision in what they agree to produce and b) openly gay people are near-universally opposed to homophobia and far more likely to express such opposition in the products they purchase and the views they express, there's certainly an argument that refusing to serve such a cake amounts to discrimination on the ground of sexuality even though they would also refuse that cake to a straight person. The reason this example is different is:

a) The belief causing the decision is discriminatory.
b) Basing business decisions on this belief is far more likely to cause customers of a certain sexual orientation to be turned away.
c) The discriminatory belief being acted upon causes clearly discriminatory decisions being made on who to serve - A gay man ordering a cake saying "I should have the right to marry" with an image of their husband on would be turned away, whereas a straight woman ordering such a cake would be accepted.

In the case of the Mohammed depiction, the belief ("Mohammed should not be depicted") is not discriminatory, the vast majority of orders from any protected group would still be fulfilled with the only ones being rejected relating directly to this belief and not to any certain religious group, and the belief does not cause any clear cases of discrimination.

So if a Muslim-owned cake shop refused to print a cake saying, "Christianity is the only true faith", would you support or oppose their decision?

Legally at least it's got a much stronger argument, simply because the part they object to is the "gay" part. They don't oppose marriage, they just oppose gay people having the right to take part in it. Considering you can put all the religious stuff to one side since marriage is a legal institution in this country, opposing the right to a civil marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Now the legal argument is whether you can defend a homophobic position, without discriminating against gay customers - considering that a) that position is impacting their decision in what they agree to produce and b) openly gay people are near-universally opposed to homophobia and far more likely to express such opposition in the products they purchase and the views they express, there's certainly an argument that refusing to serve such a cake amounts to discrimination on the ground of sexuality even though they would also refuse that cake to a straight person. The reason this example is different is:

a) The belief causing the decision is discriminatory.
b) Basing business decisions on this belief is far more likely to cause customers of a certain sexual orientation to be turned away.
c) The discriminatory belief being acted upon causes clearly discriminatory decisions being made on who to serve - A gay man ordering a cake saying "I should have the right to marry" with an image of their husband on would be turned away, whereas a straight woman ordering such a cake would be accepted.

In the case of the Mohammed depiction, the belief ("Mohammed should not be depicted") is not discriminatory, the vast majority of orders from any protected group would still be fulfilled with the only ones being rejected relating directly to this belief and not to any certain religious group, and the belief does not cause any clear cases of discrimination.

On a personal level, I'd support it and have sympathy for them. Despite that, I accept that it is for the best it is illegal for them to do so. It clearly is discriminating based on someone's religious belief, and the "Hobby Lobby" case from the US demonstrates exactly why it's best to avoid the path of saying corporations have the right to religion - it opens up a massive, massive can of worms. Religion should be personal, it should have no place in the state or in business.

Would you feel the same way if they had wanted a cake with the message "white and proud" and they were refused?