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

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~ Aquamarine ~)
    I think as it's not like a chain store and is a independent run bakery, surely they can choose whether they want to serve a customers order or not based on their beliefs in this situation. Like the other poster said, they didn't refuse to bake the couple a cake just because they was gay, they refused to bake it because of the slogan that was requested to be put on the cake. I'm sure if the couple wanted a normal cake without the slogan then that would have been fine.
    I suppose they would also refuse to make a wedding cake with figures of two grooms or brides hand in hand, as it goes against their beliefs. Is that not homophobic?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael!)
    In 2007 it became illegal to discriminate people because of their sexual orientation when providing goods and services. Therefore, they broke the law.
    The outcome of this law is that some people are more equal than others. Why should homosexuals be the bearers of a "protected characteristic" which will give them State-sponsored immunity? As we can see from this case the privilege is being abused.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    They weren't denied anything on the basis of their sexuality. They were denied on the basis that the bakery did not want to endorse a political message. If the gay customer had merely asked for a cake, they would not have been refused.
    Firstly, how can you be sure they wouldn't have been refused? You can't look at a person and tell that they are gay, so the business would be unlikely to know anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if they denied a gay couple a bog standard wedding cake as it's 'supporting gay marriage'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the bakery is fine in this case, but only because they refused on the grounds that they did not want to make the message. If they discriminated on the grounds that the customers were gay then they are wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    How is that remotely comparable?
    Race and sexuality

    Both messages can be considered political messges

    so again how would you feel if they had refused a cake with the term 'Black and proud'?
    Offline

    14
    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?
    (Original post by Marcum)
    If they were asked by a mixed race couple to make the little people that go on top of a wedding cake but refused to do so as they disagree with mixed race marriage would you support their right to refuse?
    You can't equate those messages to that of the cake. This was the proposed cake:



    So a similar request would be a cake saying "support black marriage" or "support interracial marriage". And instead of "queer space" I suppose it would say "****** space". After all, ****** and queer are words that are offensive when not used by blacks and gays respectively, but acceptable when used by those groups.

    And I would be perfectly happy for the bakery to not make that cake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The outcome of this law is that some people are more equal than others. Why should homosexuals be the bearers of a "protected characteristic" which will give them State-sponsored immunity? As we can see from this case the privilege is being abused.
    That's just the world we live in. There never will be true equality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is disgusting. You want to remove their right to choose who they make business with, so someone else can have rights? It's not like they said "you're gay, get out." There is no logic in this,
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael!)
    That's just the world we live in. There is and never will be true equality.
    Right, so let us delete the so-called Equality Act from the statute book. It is naught but a piece of misguided social engineering.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The outcome of this law is that some people are more equal than others. Why should homosexuals be the bearers of a "protected characteristic" which will give them State-sponsored immunity? As we can see from this case the privilege is being abused.
    They have no extra rights, it is still illegal to discriminate on the basis of being straight as well as being gay. The law says "sexuality", not being homosexual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dani California)
    This is disgusting. You want to remove their right to choose who they make business with, so someone else can have rights? It's not like they said "you're gay, get out." There is no logic in this,
    You want to sell goods you comply with the law and yes that's right we want to remove the rights of peole to discriminate because of sexuality and race, this is a good thing (unless you think discrimination due to race and sexuality are OK)

    It's that simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What if i opened a bakery, and said NO CHRISTIANS ALLOWED!
    There would be uproar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    You want to sell goods you comply with the law

    It's that simple.
    Then the law is wrong. It's that simple.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radicalathiest)
    The point is the shop does not get to define what message is acceptable or not on one of the cakes

    as I have asked others how would you feel if they had refused a cake with the term 'black and proud' written on it?
    So someone could request a cake with a big swastika on it saying 'Nazism rocks' and the bakery would be obliged to make it despite the obviously questionable sentiment?

    Don't get me wrong - I'm gay and I would be upset if I ordered my wedding cake with two grooms and it was turned away by a bakery. But something tells me the law protects private companies who do not want to 'act against their beliefs or consciences'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    You can't equate those messages to that of the cake.
    Who get's to decide what is an acceptable message or not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Society's semen crazier day by day
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fortunesfool)
    Firstly, how can you be sure they wouldn't have been refused? You can't look at a person and tell that they are gay, so the business would be unlikely to know anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if they denied a gay couple a bog standard wedding cake as it's 'supporting gay marriage'.
    If that were the case, then I would not support the bakery. But you have absolutely no way of knowing that, and those aren't the circumstances here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dani California)
    Then the law is wrong. It's that simple.
    So you would be OK with a sign outside of a shop that said 'No Blacks'?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    I don't think the rejection of service was necessarily based on the customer's sexuality, though. I think that it was the nature of the service requested that was rejected. Had the customer, who may or may not have been gay, ordered something more generic like a birthday cake, I don't think they would have been turned away.
    This seems rather like the argument that defends the banning of gay marriage as nondiscriminatory because it applies to everyone equally - straight people can't marry people of the same sex either, and gay people are free to marry members of the opposite sex. In any case the same argument could be used to defend refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, the order for which might be placed by any straight or a gay person attending or helping to organise a gay wedding, and that would definitely be discriminatory.

    If applying a blanket prohibition against everyone primarily affects a subset of the population that share a protected characteristic then it is discrimination, and I doubt this bakery would have much luck arguing otherwise in court.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The outcome of this law is that some people are more equal than others. Why should homosexuals be the bearers of a "protected characteristic" which will give them State-sponsored immunity? As we can see from this case the privilege is being abused.
    Conversely I ask, why should heterosexuals be the bearers of a "protected characteristic" which gives them societal-sponsored immunity?
 
 
 
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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.