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 RVNmax)
    I did answer. I answered why the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse like they did the real case. Then I said why a bakery should be able to refuse as per your own example.
    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 . . .
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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 . . .
    When I said that he can refuse already, what makes it so different now.

    Total opposite actually; no hypocrisy. I'm just carrying on with my previous stance that a bakery can refuse to put a prophet on a cake...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RVNmax)
    When I said that he can refuse already, what makes it so different now.

    Total opposite actually; no hypocrisy. I'm just carrying on with my previous stance that a bakery can refuse to put a prophet on a cake...
    Your position is entirely hypocritical. It causes no more harm to a gay person to be refused a pro-gay marriage slogan with or without the prophet. However in the former case you are prepared to completely ignore the religious justification for refusal of service; in the latter, you suddenly elevate that religious justification to override the pro-gay customer's 'right' to a cake with the message he/she wants.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Your position is entirely hypocritical. It causes no more harm to a gay person to be refused a pro-gay marriage slogan with or without the prophet. However in the former case you are prepared to completely ignore the religious justification for refusal of service; in the latter, you suddenly elevate that religious justification to override the pro-gay customer's 'right' to a cake with the message he/she wants.
    I gave justification. In the former case, yes I ignored the the religious justification as I explained. You cannot just allow what religion says over everything else. If some religion allows for murder, does it make it fine? no. It is not correct to discriminate based on sexuality. Unless you want to argue with that (which I asked in the first post) I shall carry on.
    Then in the latter, you cannot do something wrong, just because you are doing something correct along with it. I didn't say the bakery can refuse it on the basis of the pro-gay message (whether religious agenda against that or not), but on the basis that the prophet cannot be put on the cake.
    The message wanted, in relation to the prophet, is one that can be refused without causing harm.
    I am not elevating religion, I am equating it with everything else as long as there is no harm caused (clash with another factor). Note that the bakery (even if Islamic) cannot refuse the pro-gay message (still assuming of course that they offer messages on cakes for other things), even though Islam is against homosexuality (AFAIK).

    The fact that I sometimes discount religion is just like getting discriminated on the basis of height for theme park rides, where as most things in life you cannot do that. It's simply because there was a justifiable reason (to prevent harm).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "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?)."
    Yeah, I think that's right. And regardless of the legal circumstances, this seems like a clear-cut case of a mean-spirited activist being manipulative and trying to sabotage someone's livelihood and reputation. I hope they fight the legal action.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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 . . .
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    Would you feel the same way if they had wanted the cake with message 'black and proud' and they were refused?
    Would you feel the same way if they had wanted a cake with the message "white and proud" and they were refused?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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.
    What??? Atheism is the belief there is no God. How exactly do you equate believing there is not God, with drawing the Prophet Mohammed?!
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    They didn't refuse to serve him based on his sexuality.
    no, because they were a christian bakery and disagreed with homosexuality. that still doesn't make it right though
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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.

    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    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.
    I think the example that Chief Wiggum supplied shows that we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    Fundamentally it's not even a question of religion at all - it is the right of a businessperson to refuse service. I tend to see it as more inhuman for the government to force a Muslim to print 'Christianity is the only true faith' on his cake than for the Christian to have to find a cakemaker who is willing to make such a message. That's a macabre sham of 'religious freedom'.

    On a pragmatic level, there may be cases which arise where a particular group is genuinely disadvantaged to such an extent that the government needs to mandate service - but I think these should be handled as individual or perhaps time-limited group specific cases. The original example in this thread, in my opinion, does not fall into such a category in the slightest.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Would you feel the same way if they had wanted a cake with the message "white and proud" and they were refused?
    Yes.

    While twatish it is not againt the law to calim to be 'white and proud' nor is it up to the bakery to define what they believe to be an acceptable 'message' on their cakes.
 
 
 
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.