Bakery refuses to make "gay cake"; faces legal action
Scroll to see replies
Original post by betaglucowhat
If a blanket prohibition or action that, when applied to everyone, only really affects a subset of the population that shares a protected character then it is discriminatory.
It's the same as gay marriage itself; gay individuals were never unable to get married because of their sexuality, but any two people of the same sex were unable to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. Straight men couldn't marry straight men, while gay men could freely marry gay women. While a gay marriage ban is applied to everyone equally, it only really affects gay people, and it is discriminatory.
Refusing to take orders that celebrate gay marriage primarily affects gay customers, it is discriminatory, and it is illegal.
It's the same as gay marriage itself; gay individuals were never unable to get married because of their sexuality, but any two people of the same sex were unable to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. Straight men couldn't marry straight men, while gay men could freely marry gay women. While a gay marriage ban is applied to everyone equally, it only really affects gay people, and it is discriminatory.
Refusing to take orders that celebrate gay marriage primarily affects gay customers, it is discriminatory, and it is illegal.
But what makes it illegal? Everyone I've seen so far in the thread is using a law which isn't relevant in this case, since they weren't refusing to serve the customer because of his sexuality. If they would also have refused to serve the cake to a heterosexual, then they weren't discriminating on the basis on sexuality.
Is there a different law that you're referring to that makes the shop's actions illegal?
What bothers me is that people think religious beliefs should have a privileged position in society. There is no evidence whatsoever for a supernatural creator. At best a rational person would be completely agnostic with regards to the existence of such a being, which is to say that they would be on the fence when it comes to the existence of a deity and would have no reason to believe existence is more probable than non-existence and vice-versa. A theistic god that cares about and interferes with human affairs, on the other hand, is so implausible that one can reasonably conclude that each of the major religions is almost certainly (in a probabilistic sense) untrue. Given that this is the case, why should religious people have the right to discriminate against people on the basis of something like their sexuality? I'm willing to bet that most people on this site would not condone an apartheid-esque system in which business owners would be granted the right to deny entry into their establishments on the basis of the ethnicity of the would be patron. However, such discriminatory behaviour might be condoned by some under the aegis of religion.
My point here is that religious rights should hold no more weight than my right to discriminate on the basis of my hatred of black people just because I don't like them (I don't hate black people - I'm just making a point).
As for the matter at hand, people really ought to stop caring about other people's sexuality. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. People who argue that religious people should have certain rights to discriminate need to realise that granting such rights is no different from granting rights to people who believe in the Nazi's that allow them to discriminate against Jews.
In some peoples eyes, religion (almost certainly false) should be granted more privilege than science (true) on this matter. This is despite the fact that science has concluded that sexuality is not a matter of choice. Other people's sexuality doesn't have an impact on my welfare. The idea of male-male sex repulses me as a heterosexual man but I don't have to see it so that is fine. I can't use this as a reason to oppose homosexual man and to do so would be ridiculous and would hurt society.
My point here is that religious rights should hold no more weight than my right to discriminate on the basis of my hatred of black people just because I don't like them (I don't hate black people - I'm just making a point).
As for the matter at hand, people really ought to stop caring about other people's sexuality. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. People who argue that religious people should have certain rights to discriminate need to realise that granting such rights is no different from granting rights to people who believe in the Nazi's that allow them to discriminate against Jews.
In some peoples eyes, religion (almost certainly false) should be granted more privilege than science (true) on this matter. This is despite the fact that science has concluded that sexuality is not a matter of choice. Other people's sexuality doesn't have an impact on my welfare. The idea of male-male sex repulses me as a heterosexual man but I don't have to see it so that is fine. I can't use this as a reason to oppose homosexual man and to do so would be ridiculous and would hurt society.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by betaglucowhat
Refusing to take orders that celebrate gay marriage primarily affects gay customers, it is discriminatory, and it is illegal.
Nonsense. There are plenty of straight people out there who might want to show their support for gay marriage. Likewise, there are gay people who do not support it.
I think it is hard to argue that this was discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, when clearly it was the political message that was important, which is not something restricted to the gay community.
Original post by stefl14
What bothers me is that people think religious beliefs should have a privileged position in society.
Who thinks this? No one in this thread I have seen.
My point here is that religious rights should hold no more weight than my right to discriminate on the basis of my hatred of black people just because I don't like them (I don't hate black people - I'm just making a point).
Indeed they should not. Everyone should have equal rights to discriminate.
As for the matter at hand, people really ought to stop caring about other people's sexuality. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. People who argue that religious people should have certain rights to discriminate need to realise that granting such rights is no different from granting rights to people who believe in the Nazi's that allow them to discriminate against Jews.
Godwin's law misapplied once again, it's really not the same in any way. If the Nazis had restricted themselves to not letting Juden into their shops, the situation would have been markedly different. From a liberal standpoint, there is a difference between refusing to perform a service for someone and throwing them into a gas chamber. Can you spot the important distinction? One involves force, one does not.
Original post by stefl14
What bothers me is that people think religious beliefs should have a privileged position in society. There is no evidence whatsoever for a supernatural creator. At best a rational person would be completely agnostic with regards to the existence of such a being, which is to say that they are on the fence when it comes to the existence of a deity and have no reason to believe existence is more probable than non-existence or vice-versa. A theistic god that cares about and interferes with human affairs, on the other hand, is so implausible that one can reasonably conclude that each of the major religions is almost certainly (in a probabilistic sense) untrue. Given that this is the case, why should religious people have the right to discriminate against people on the basis of something like their sexuality? I'm willing to bet that most people on this site would not condone an apartheid-esque system in which business owners would be granted the right to deny entry into their establishments on the basis of the ethnicity of the would be patron. However, such discriminatory behaviour might be condoned by some under the aegis of religion.
My point here is that religious rights should hold no more weight than my right to discriminate on the basis of my hatred of black people just because I don't like them (I don't hate black people - I'm just making a point).
As for the matter at hand, people really ought to stop caring about other people's sexuality. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. People who argue that religious people should have certain rights to discriminate need to realise that granting such rights is no different from granting rights to people who believe in the Nazi's that allow them to discriminate against Jews.
My point here is that religious rights should hold no more weight than my right to discriminate on the basis of my hatred of black people just because I don't like them (I don't hate black people - I'm just making a point).
As for the matter at hand, people really ought to stop caring about other people's sexuality. It's gotten to the point of ridiculousness. People who argue that religious people should have certain rights to discriminate need to realise that granting such rights is no different from granting rights to people who believe in the Nazi's that allow them to discriminate against Jews.
The man trying to purchase the cake wasn't discriminated against due to his sexuality. His order was refused because the cake shop disagreed with the message on his cake design. If a heterosexual man requested the same cake, I would certainly think that cake shop would also have refused to produce it.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
But what makes it illegal? Everyone I've seen so far in the thread is using a law which isn't relevant in this case, since they weren't refusing to serve the customer because of his sexuality. If they would also have refused to serve the cake to a heterosexual, then they weren't discriminating on the basis on sexuality.
Is there a different law that you're referring to that makes the shop's actions illegal?
Is there a different law that you're referring to that makes the shop's actions illegal?
It is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 because, as I said, refusing to bake cakes that celebrate gay marriage discriminates against gay people regardless of whether a straight person might also want to buy one. In the same way a gay marriage ban is discriminatory against gay people even though straight people of the same sex are also banned from marrying each other. That is why the Equality Commission is involved, and why, if the bakery refuses to deal with the Commission, legal proceedings will begin and the bakery will lose.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by betaglucowhat
It is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 because, as I said, refusing to bake cakes that celebrate gay marriage discriminates against gay people regardless of whether a straight person might also want to buy one. In the same way a gay marriage ban is discriminatory against gay people even though straight people of the same sex are also banned from marrying each other. That is why the Equality Commission is involved, and why, if the bakery refuses to deal with the Commission, legal proceedings will begin and the bakery will lose.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
But same-sex marriage is also illegal in Northern Ireland, where the cake shop is located. Surely if it had been decided legally that banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory, the law would have to be changed there to allow same-sex marriage?
Original post by Chief Wiggum
But same-sex marriage is also illegal in Northern Ireland, where the cake shop is located. Surely if it had been decided legally that banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory, the law would have to be changed there to allow same-sex marriage?
It has always been at odds with anti-discriminatory legislation, which is part of the reason for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. The question of whether the NI government has the political will to follow the rest of the UK and correct this is a different matter.
Original post by betaglucowhat
It has always been at odds with anti-discriminatory legislation, which is part of the reason for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. The question of whether the NI government has the political will to follow the rest of the UK and correct this is a different matter.
But surely if it broke anti-discrimination legislation in the way that you are suggesting, then same-sex marriage would have to be legalised?
If anti-discrimination legislation exists, and same-sex marriage is banned, then I would question whether your interpretation of the anti-discrimination legislation (as you have outlined above) is correct.
(Although obviously I am no legal expert.
)(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Dandaman1
Neither Three Mile Sprint nor I would necessarily agree with what the sign is saying, but we would be perfectly OK with the owners' right to have the sign. And, even if they legally could, in this day and age few shop owners would be ballsy enough to have a sign like that.
The law does not decide right and wrong. It's supposed to work the other way around. In this instance, we believe the law is misguided and needs amending.
The law does not decide right and wrong. It's supposed to work the other way around. In this instance, we believe the law is misguided and needs amending.
Three Mile Sprint actually does
'But yes I would be.'
But I think you'll find more support for the law than against it
Original post by CJKay
Of course you can't, because they likely a) don't have all the exact ingredients you're looking for, b) the chef doesn't know how to make the meal you're looking for and c) nobody has the time to take down recipes and figure out how to cook them. The whole reason for a menu is so that they can provide particular meals at pace with no faffing around. That is one of the worst comparisons ever.
Those are not the only reasons why you have to order something off the menu. The main reason is because it is entirely up to the business to decide what they sell or don't sell.
Even if they have all the ingredients you want, the chef knows exactly how to make what you want, and he has all the time in the world to make it, they still under no obligation to sell you that meal, if they're not advertising it for sale.
Original post by betaglucowhat
It is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 because, as I said, refusing to bake cakes that celebrate gay marriage discriminates against gay people regardless of whether a straight person might also want to buy one. In the same way a gay marriage ban is discriminatory against gay people even though straight people of the same sex are also banned from marrying each other. That is why the Equality Commission is involved, and why, if the bakery refuses to deal with the Commission, legal proceedings will begin and the bakery will lose.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
The Equality Act 2010 is a worryingly authoritarian piece of legislation that attacks the fundamental freedoms of businesses. It should be repealed immediately.
Original post by tazarooni89
Those are not the only reasons why you have to order something off the menu. The main reason is because it is entirely up to the business to decide what they sell or don't sell.
Even if they have all the ingredients you want, the chef knows exactly how to make what you want, and he has all the time in the world to make it, they still under no obligation to sell you that meal, if they're not advertising it for sale.
Even if they have all the ingredients you want, the chef knows exactly how to make what you want, and he has all the time in the world to make it, they still under no obligation to sell you that meal, if they're not advertising it for sale.
Of course, restaurants choose not to serve caesar salad because they have an irrational fear of caesar salad. How did I not realise? Obviously restaurants don't choose not to serve certain meals because their cost/profit ratios are lesser, or because they require recipes the chef doesn't know, or because they don't have certain ingredients, or any other logical explanation other than "because they don't want to".
(edited 9 years ago)
What was refused was a product displaying a message the bakery disagreed with. The equality act covers services. Gay people aren't banned from buying cakes from there or ordering custom cakes.
Gay people aren't being discriminated at this bakery. Anyone of any gender could've ordered this cake and would've been refused.
There is no case against this bakery. This group is only pushing it to advertise their agenda. There's noway any lawsuit will stand up in court because of refusal to make a product based purely on the product's design.
Gay people aren't being discriminated at this bakery. Anyone of any gender could've ordered this cake and would've been refused.
There is no case against this bakery. This group is only pushing it to advertise their agenda. There's noway any lawsuit will stand up in court because of refusal to make a product based purely on the product's design.
Original post by CJKay
Of course, restaurants choose not to serve caesar salad because they have an irrational fear of caesar salad. How did I not realise? Obviously restaurants don't choose not to serve certain meals because their cost/profit ratios are lesser, or because they require recipes the chef doesn't know, or because they don't have certain ingredients, or any other logical explanation other than "because they don't want to".
It doesn't have to be for a "logical reason". It's their decision, logical reason or not. If they have an irrational fear of Caesar salad then so be it, they don't have to sell it.
In this case, their reason is that they feel it goes against their religious beliefs. It's on the same basis that certain restaurants only serve halal food, or some refuse to serve meat, or some refuse to sell dairy and meat products as part of the same dish. Whether you think the reason is logical or not is completely irrelevant because it's entirely their decision.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by betaglucowhat
It is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 because, as I said, refusing to bake cakes that celebrate gay marriage discriminates against gay people regardless of whether a straight person might also want to buy one. In the same way a gay marriage ban is discriminatory against gay people even though straight people of the same sex are also banned from marrying each other. That is why the Equality Commission is involved, and why, if the bakery refuses to deal with the Commission, legal proceedings will begin and the bakery will lose.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
This is no different than the bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes with two grooms on top.
It dosnt discriminate against gay people though. It discriminates against people who are pro gay marriage. If anything it discriminates against political beliefs. It's not protected characteristics that are at play here. It's essentially a battle of two political views. It would be compatible to having a Tory baker refusing to bake a cake for the Labour Party conference.
The problem here is that we've muddled causes with people. This was discrimination against the beliefs of a person arguably. But is that wrong? Let's say you had a gay baker and they were asked to make a cake for a group lobbying against same sex marriage. Would you be consistent in your beleifs and support legal action being taken against them?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by betaglucowhat
And the law did not prohibit gay people from getting married because they were gay, it stopped any two people of the same sex from getting married whether they were gay or straight. Gay people were still free to marry people of the opposite sex and straight people could not marry people of the same sex.
Note that this is an actual argument used by bigots to defend gay marriage bans as nondiscriminatory, and the same argument people are using in this thread to support discriminatory business practices.
If a blanket prohibition or action that applies to everyone only really affects a subset of the population that shares a protected character then it is discriminatory.
Note that this is an actual argument used by bigots to defend gay marriage bans as nondiscriminatory, and the same argument people are using in this thread to support discriminatory business practices.
If a blanket prohibition or action that applies to everyone only really affects a subset of the population that shares a protected character then it is discriminatory.
But the issue is not one of refusing a service based on sexual orientation. It's not comparable. The issue is simply one of political beleifs. They discriminated against the political beleifs of that person, not because of their sexuality. Is that illegal? Perhaps, but that's where the debate lies.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
But same-sex marriage is also illegal in Northern Ireland, where the cake shop is located. Surely if it had been decided legally that banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory, the law would have to be changed there to allow same-sex marriage?
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).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Tesco Flexi Contract
- If you were given 1 million pounds to set up a business, what would it be and why?
- Is jaffa cake a cake or biscuit?
- Can Muslims practice criminal law
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- An inspector calls
- accounting
- How to get 9 in GCSE English literature...
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- Struggle and emergency with my student accomodation
- Did I muck things up?
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- Twin block braces
- 5 careers for Law Graduates
- Please Grade my essay - English Lit GCSE
- temporary traffic lights
- An Inspector Calls
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
