Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    What is boils down to is that the state doesn't follow the rules it forces everyone else to. Quite regularly, courts will tell it something is wrong and are just ignored, because they don't have the power to really do anything about it - one example being prisoner's voting rights, where it's been ruled that the blanket ban is a vagrant breach of human rights law but Parliament flat-out refuses to do anything. The marriage situation in NI is similar - if I were to set up a service and then say it wasn't available to gay couples it'd clearly be illegal, but there is no-one to tell the Assembly they have to legalise it (barring the Westminster government which isn't inclined to either).
    If you have any good stories about this issue, would you mind linking me to them?

    By the way, I think you might mean 'flagrant breach'...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    Yet you did and I'll ignore it

    The truth is you want to allow bigotry and discrimination

    Our society does not

    Better you find a society that allows you to discriminate as you'll be unhappy in ours at it does not
    I'll leave this argument (I hesitate to call it a debate, as you don't know the meaning of the word) as your reading comprehension skills and capacity to think and reason are both staggeringly poor. You're either too stupid or too ignorant to understand what I'm saying so there is no point in me wasting my time and eroding my keyboard on yet another generic pseudo-liberal who doesn't have the faintest idea what liberty means.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    I'll leave this argument
    You don't have one

    you are still wrong

    but better than leave you in your ignorance have a read of what the law actually says

    May help you but it may not

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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    Yes I do

    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.

    So in this case

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

    You see the bakery does not get to decide what message it finds acceptable nor can it discriminate because it finds a pro gay message unacceptable.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    Yes I do

    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.

    So in this case

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

    You see the bakery does not get to decide what message it finds acceptable nor can it discriminate because it finds a pro gay message unacceptable.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    And when the two conflict?
    So I ask for a cake where I'm blowing jesus, can I be refused by the bakery?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.