Christian bakers in 'gay cake' row did not discriminate against same-sex marriage activist, Supreme Court rules

e Christian owners of a bakery have won an appeal at the UK's highest court over a finding that they discriminated against a customer by refusing to make a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage".

Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthur family in a unanimous ruling in London on Wednesday in what has become widely known as the "gay cake case".

The legal action was originally brought against family-run Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case initially in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/10/christian-owners-bakery-win-appeal-discrimination-ruling-refusing/



Common sense prevails at last!!!


Nobody should be forced to promote a political opinion that they do not want to!

I agree....though I wonder why they accepted the commission in the first place.

Cost thousands, but at least they won.

I don't think anyone should do anything if it's against their beliefs.

Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

Les wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

Yes, I think that is the case. The people who back the baker's rights here, are making a case for the right to personal belief, regardless of popular causes.

It won't work in the US because we attach business decisions to commerce, and govern it through the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the Constitution. But in the UK, where they have no ICC or a Constitution, it is seen as an infringement on the individual's right to his/her beliefs, no matter where it leads.

Original Quill wrote:

Les wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

Yes, I think that is the case.  The people who back the baker's rights here, are making a case for the right to personal belief, regardless of popular causes.

It won't work in the US because we attach business decisions to commerce, and govern it through the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the Constitution.  But in the UK, where they have no ICC or a Constitution, it is seen as an infringement on the individual's right to his/her beliefs, no matter where it leads.

Didn't a similar case like this happen in the US not long ago? And with a similar result?

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I think that is the case.  The people who back the baker's rights here, are making a case for the right to personal belief, regardless of popular causes.

It won't work in the US because we attach business decisions to commerce, and govern it through the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the Constitution.  But in the UK, where they have no ICC or a Constitution, it is seen as an infringement on the individual's right to his/her beliefs, no matter where it leads.

Didn't a similar case like this happen in the US not long ago? And with a similar result?

Yes, it did. But, ahah...here is the trick. The bakers in the US used another part of the Constitution to combat the part that justified the restriction on the commercial activity.

They used the First Amendment freedom of Religion, to combat the Commerce Clause restriction limiting discrimination. They said homosexuality was contrary to their religious convictions, so it amounted to a draw. You guys don't have a written Constitution, with it's Article Six supremacy clause to trump ordinary legislation, so y'all are basically free-wheeling it in the UK.

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

Does not set a bad precedent but one that sets a liberal precedent, true to a democratic society.

Freedom of expression and the right to discriminate against beliefs you do not like

That does not mean discriminating against people, but a belief, as you well do of beliefs you do not like

Hence it works both ways

Beliefs should never be protected from criticism, ridicule and discrimination

As you certainly do not support a religious belief that condemns homosexuality

I support the right of people not forced to make something they do not agree with.

Hence I doubt you would not mind if a gay couple refused to make a cake, saying "ban gay marriage" or some homophobic slur by a religious couple, would you?

Or do you believe they should be forced?

Whilst I agree with gay marriage, this is not about gay marriage. Its about the right of people to refuse to promote a belief they disagree with.

So nobody is a hypocrite here. You may disagree and even condemn a couple for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. Though they should have every right to do so.

What you are trying to do is force your beliefs onto theirs.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

Does not set a bad precedent but one that sets a liberal precedent, true to a democratic society.

Freedom of expression and the right to discriminate against beliefs you do not like

That does not mean discriminating against people, but a belief, as you well do of beliefs you do not like

Hence it works both ways

Beliefs should never be protected from criticism, ridicule and discrimination

As you certainly do not support a religious belief that condemns homosexuality

I support the right of people not forced to make something they do not agree with.

Hence I doubt you would not mind if a gay couple refused to make a cake, saying "ban gay marriage" or some homophobic slur by a religious couple, would you?

Or do you believe they should be forced?

Whilst I agree with gay marriage, this is not about gay marriage. Its about the right of people to refuse to promote a belief they disagree with.

So nobody is a hypocrite here. You may disagree and even condemn a couple for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. Though they should have every right to do so.

What you are trying to do is force your beliefs onto theirs.

So what you are saying is, IF a racist baker didn't want to bake a cake because it goes against their beliefs, you would be ok with that?

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Does not set a bad precedent but one that sets a liberal precedent, true to a democratic society.

Freedom of expression and the right to discriminate against beliefs you do not like

That does not mean discriminating against people, but a belief, as you well do of beliefs you do not like

Hence it works both ways

Beliefs should never be protected from criticism, ridicule and discrimination

As you certainly do not support a religious belief that condemns homosexuality

I support the right of people not forced to make something they do not agree with.

Hence I doubt you would not mind if a gay couple refused to make a cake, saying "ban gay marriage" or some homophobic slur by a religious couple, would you?

Or do you believe they should be forced?

Whilst I agree with gay marriage, this is not about gay marriage. Its about the right of people to refuse to promote a belief they disagree with.

So nobody is a hypocrite here. You may disagree and even condemn a couple for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. Though they should have every right to do so.

What you are trying to do is force your beliefs onto theirs.

So what you are saying is, IF a racist baker didn't want to bake a cake because it goes against their beliefs, you would be ok with that?

See how badly you want to make play on words?

I asked you questions and you avoided them, because you know you would back the right of a gay couple to refuse to make a cake saying "ban gay marriage"

If the message on the cake went against their racist beliefs, that is their right to refuse.

It does not mean I would support them doing so and I would certainly ridicule and stand against them

Do you understand the difference?

You cannot force people to promote beliefs they disagree with

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Does not set a bad precedent but one that sets a liberal precedent, true to a democratic society.

Freedom of expression and the right to discriminate against beliefs you do not like

That does not mean discriminating against people, but a belief, as you well do of beliefs you do not like

Hence it works both ways

Beliefs should never be protected from criticism, ridicule and discrimination

As you certainly do not support a religious belief that condemns homosexuality

I support the right of people not forced to make something they do not agree with.

Hence I doubt you would not mind if a gay couple refused to make a cake, saying "ban gay marriage" or some homophobic slur by a religious couple, would you?

Or do you believe they should be forced?

Whilst I agree with gay marriage, this is not about gay marriage. Its about the right of people to refuse to promote a belief they disagree with.

So nobody is a hypocrite here. You may disagree and even condemn a couple for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. Though they should have every right to do so.

What you are trying to do is force your beliefs onto theirs.

So what you are saying is, IF a racist baker didn't want to bake a cake because it goes against their beliefs, you would be ok with that?

See how badly you want to make  play on words?

I asked you questions and you avoided them, because you know you would back the right of a gay couple to refuse to make a cake saying "ban gay marriage"

If the message on the cake went against their racist beliefs, that is their right to refuse.

It does not mean I would support them doing so and I would certainly ridicule and stand against them

Do you understand the difference?

You cannot force people to promote beliefs they disagree with

My personal feeling is that if you run a business you should serve your customers what they ask for. If you are a Manchester United fan, you should have to make a cake with the Man City badge if that is requested. If you are of one religion and someone of another religion asks you to bake a cake bearing marks of another religion, you should have to do it. And yes, if, in some bizarre situation someone actually wanted a cake saying 'Ban Gay Marriage' then the baker should make it regardless of their views.

The thing is, I can say this with minimal risk. A cake for a gay wedding is 1,000,000 times more likely to be requested my ordinary people than some weird 'ban gay marriage cake'. Why? Because most people just want normal cakes. And no one just asking for a cake for their gay wedding should be refused because of the owner's backward views.

So to answer your question directly, if someone asks for a cake saying 'ban gay marriage' then imo YES they should make it.

Of course, we both know that no such cake would ever because requested because, really, wtf.

I agree with Les

A Business is not a Human (and that SHOULD be the crux of it legally) 
therefore does not have Human rights  

anyone working (or owning) a Business is free to stop if they can't separate their Personal feelings from Secular Business 

Of Course the Homophobs are rejoicing as they have literally just Voided human rights in favor of bigotry and Gave Corporation More rights than Humans 

You can count of the Dumb to be Absolute Scum and ruin Society for everyone.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

See how badly you want to make  play on words?

I asked you questions and you avoided them, because you know you would back the right of a gay couple to refuse to make a cake saying "ban gay marriage"

If the message on the cake went against their racist beliefs, that is their right to refuse.

It does not mean I would support them doing so and I would certainly ridicule and stand against them

Do you understand the difference?

You cannot force people to promote beliefs they disagree with

My personal feeling is that if you run a business you should serve your customers what they ask for. If you are a Manchester United fan, you should have to make a cake with the Man City badge if that is requested. If you are of one religion and someone of another religion asks you to bake a cake bearing marks of another religion, you should have to do it. And yes, if, in some bizarre situation someone actually wanted a cake saying 'Ban Gay Marriage' then the baker should make it regardless of their views.

The thing is, I can say this with minimal risk. A cake for a gay wedding is 1,000,000 times more likely to be requested my ordinary people than some weird 'ban gay marriage cake'. Why? Because most people just want normal cakes. And no one just asking for a cake for their gay wedding should be refused because of the owner's backward views.

So to answer your question directly, if someone asks for a cake saying 'ban gay marriage' then imo YES they should make it.

Of course, we both know that no such cake would ever because requested because, really, wtf.

No you should not have to as again you are forcing things onto people against their beliefs

To say they have to do this, is as bad as where religions force things onto peoples beliefs

Its the very same thing and you have no right to do so and its only because this specific case is about gay marriage

For you to turn round and say a couple couple should have to make a cake that says "Ban Gay marriage" or a homophobic slur, shows you have lost your sense here, because you certainly do not speak for the entire gay community and nor can you or should you decide for them.

There is nothing worse when some in society think they can force beliefs onto others

This is no different to you thinking you can deny me the right to smoke in public

How far the left have fallen it seems

Again, because you are denying people the right to freedom of expression and that means being able to refuse to promote something against your own beliefs

Well this was not an ordinary cake either, as it was not a wedding cake, but a promotional cake. So your reasoning is as absurd and it does not matter how or less often it would happen

You dont have a right to force this on anyone

As its crossing the line of equality.

Gay rights means, having the same rights, not more rights than anyone else.

So to be honest your views are just as backwards here

And as to your last point, no I do not agree and believe such cakes would be requsted. You have zero evidence and are doing so off emotion to think so

I certainly know Nazi theme cakes have been and as seen you would expect someone Jewish, Roma, gay, Polish etc to make such a cake

They would all tell you to take a running jump

I think this decision is right. I said at the time that they didn't refuse to serve someone because they are gay, they just refused to make a cake with that message on it.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

See how badly you want to make  play on words?

I asked you questions and you avoided them, because you know you would back the right of a gay couple to refuse to make a cake saying "ban gay marriage"

If the message on the cake went against their racist beliefs, that is their right to refuse.

It does not mean I would support them doing so and I would certainly ridicule and stand against them

Do you understand the difference?

You cannot force people to promote beliefs they disagree with

My personal feeling is that if you run a business you should serve your customers what they ask for. If you are a Manchester United fan, you should have to make a cake with the Man City badge if that is requested. If you are of one religion and someone of another religion asks you to bake a cake bearing marks of another religion, you should have to do it. And yes, if, in some bizarre situation someone actually wanted a cake saying 'Ban Gay Marriage' then the baker should make it regardless of their views.

The thing is, I can say this with minimal risk. A cake for a gay wedding is 1,000,000 times more likely to be requested my ordinary people than some weird 'ban gay marriage cake'. Why? Because most people just want normal cakes. And no one just asking for a cake for their gay wedding should be refused because of the owner's backward views.

So to answer your question directly, if someone asks for a cake saying 'ban gay marriage' then imo YES they should make it.

Of course, we both know that no such cake would ever because requested because, really, wtf.

No you should not have to as again you are forcing things onto people against their beliefs

To say they have to do this, is as bad as where religions force things onto peoples beliefs

Its the very same thing and you have no right to do so and its only because this specific case is about gay marriage

For you to turn round and say a couple couple should have to make a cake that says "Ban Gay marriage" or a homophobic slur, shows you have lost your sense here, because you certainly do not speak for the entire gay community and nor can you or should you decide for them.

There is nothing worse when some in society think they can force beliefs onto others

This is no different to you thinking you can deny me the right to smoke in public

How far the left have fallen it seems

Again, because you are denying people the right to freedom of expression and that means being able to refuse to promote something against your own beliefs

Well this was not an ordinary cake either, as it was not a wedding cake, but a promotional cake. So your reasoning is as absurd and it does not matter how or less often it would happen

You dont have a right to force this on anyone

As its crossing the line of equality.

Gay rights means, having the same rights, not more rights than anyone else.

So to be honest your views are just as backwards here

And as to your last point, no I do not agree and believe such cakes would be requsted. You have zero evidence and are doing so off emotion to think so

I certainly know Nazi theme cakes have been and as seen you would expect someone Jewish, Roma, gay, Polish etc to make such a cake

They would all tell you to take a running jump

At not point did I say I represent any community here, a shame you can't separate people from their 'communities' as easily as I can. There is disagreement on this among gay people as there is among everyone else.

Fact is though if you support discriminating against people based on beliefs then you are ultimately saying every anti-discrimination measure of the last 60 years was breaching someone's rights.

You are trying to make it all about gay people with the line 'more rights'. No one is talking about having more rights, but the same.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

No you should not have to as again you are forcing things onto people against their beliefs

To say they have to do this, is as bad as where religions force things onto peoples beliefs

Its the very same thing and you have no right to do so and its only because this specific case is about gay marriage

For you to turn round and say a couple couple should have to make a cake that says "Ban Gay marriage" or a homophobic slur, shows you have lost your sense here, because you certainly do not speak for the entire gay community and nor can you or should you decide for them.

There is nothing worse when some in society think they can force beliefs onto others

This is no different to you thinking you can deny me the right to smoke in public

How far the left have fallen it seems

Again, because you are denying people the right to freedom of expression and that means being able to refuse to promote something against your own beliefs

Well this was not an ordinary cake either, as it was not a wedding cake, but a promotional cake. So your reasoning is as absurd and it does not matter how or less often it would happen

You dont have a right to force this on anyone

As its crossing the line of equality.

Gay rights means, having the same rights, not more rights than anyone else.

So to be honest your views are just as backwards here

And as to your last point, no I do not agree and believe such cakes would be requsted. You have zero evidence and are doing so off emotion to think so

I certainly know Nazi theme cakes have been and as seen you would expect someone Jewish, Roma, gay, Polish etc to make such a cake

They would all tell you to take a running jump

At not point did I say I represent any community here, a shame you can't separate people from their 'communities' as easily as I can. There is disagreement on this among gay people as there is among everyone else.

Fact is though if you support discriminating against people based on beliefs then you are ultimately saying every anti-discrimination measure of the last 60 years was breaching someone's rights.

You are trying to make it all about gay people with the line 'more rights'. No one is talking about having more rights, but the same.

So if you do not represent them, then its none of your buisness then.

I could care less if there is a disagreement within the gay community and they need to get off their high horse those trying to force their agenda.

Your next point on discrimination is again a poor play on words.

Again a person cannot be discriminated against based on their beliefs or who they are, but a person should not be forced to promote beliefs they disagree with within their beliefs.

Hence you are muddling the issue here

Its the belief being promoted that is objected to, not a cake being made for a gay couple.
If it was the later, then the bakery would be discriminating. Just as the gay couple would be discriminating against the religious couple by trying to force them to promote a belief on a cake they disagree with.

Hence equality

To me this was a couple of militant gays, trying to make a stash of money.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

No you should not have to as again you are forcing things onto people against their beliefs

To say they have to do this, is as bad as where religions force things onto peoples beliefs

Its the very same thing and you have no right to do so and its only because this specific case is about gay marriage

For you to turn round and say a couple couple should have to make a cake that says "Ban Gay marriage" or a homophobic slur, shows you have lost your sense here, because you certainly do not speak for the entire gay community and nor can you or should you decide for them.

There is nothing worse when some in society think they can force beliefs onto others

This is no different to you thinking you can deny me the right to smoke in public

How far the left have fallen it seems

Again, because you are denying people the right to freedom of expression and that means being able to refuse to promote something against your own beliefs

Well this was not an ordinary cake either, as it was not a wedding cake, but a promotional cake. So your reasoning is as absurd and it does not matter how or less often it would happen

You dont have a right to force this on anyone

As its crossing the line of equality.

Gay rights means, having the same rights, not more rights than anyone else.

So to be honest your views are just as backwards here

And as to your last point, no I do not agree and believe such cakes would be requsted. You have zero evidence and are doing so off emotion to think so

I certainly know Nazi theme cakes have been and as seen you would expect someone Jewish, Roma, gay, Polish etc to make such a cake

They would all tell you to take a running jump

At not point did I say I represent any community here, a shame you can't separate people from their 'communities' as easily as I can. There is disagreement on this among gay people as there is among everyone else.

Fact is though if you support discriminating against people based on beliefs then you are ultimately saying every anti-discrimination measure of the last 60 years was breaching someone's rights.

You are trying to make it all about gay people with the line 'more rights'. No one is talking about having more rights, but the same.

So if you do not represent them, then its none of your buisness then.

I could care less if there is a disagreement within the gay community and they need to get off their high horse those trying to force their agenda.

Your next point on discrimination is again a poor play on words.

Again a person cannot be discriminated against based on their beliefs or who they are, but a person should not be forced to promote beliefs they disagree with within their beliefs.

Hence you are muddling the issue here

Its the belief being promoted that is objected to, not a cake being made for a gay couple.
If it was the later, then the bakery would be discriminating. Just as the gay couple would be discriminating against the religious couple by trying to force them to promote a belief on a cake they disagree with.

Hence equality

To me this was a couple of militant gays, trying to make a stash of money.

It's as much my business as it is yours, so what tf you on about?

I don't see why Les should be speaking for all gay people, or why it's not his business if he's not.

It's not clear to me if the owners would have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, or if it was just the message on that particular cake they objected to.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

So if you do not represent them, then its none of your buisness then.

I could care less if there is a disagreement within the gay community and they need to get off their high horse those trying to force their agenda.

Your next point on discrimination is again a poor play on words.

Again a person cannot be discriminated against based on their beliefs or who they are, but a person should not be forced to promote beliefs they disagree with within their beliefs.

Hence you are muddling the issue here

Its the belief being promoted that is objected to, not a cake being made for a gay couple.
If it was the later, then the bakery would be discriminating. Just as the gay couple would be discriminating against the religious couple by trying to force them to promote a belief on a cake they disagree with.

Hence equality

To me this was a couple of militant gays, trying to make a stash of money.

It's as much my business as it is yours, so what tf you on about?

Not when you are trying to push your beliefs on others

That is inequality

In other words, stop trying to force your beliefs on others

You are not going to change people that way

So its naff all to do with you and that couple has to have their rights protected as much as yours.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why Les should be speaking for all gay people, or why it's not his business if he's not.

It's not clear to me if the owners would have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, or if it was just the message on that particular cake they objected to.

That's my main concern tbh, and this ruling does not make it clear which way that would go.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

So if you do not represent them, then its none of your buisness then.

I could care less if there is a disagreement within the gay community and they need to get off their high horse those trying to force their agenda.

Your next point on discrimination is again a poor play on words.

Again a person cannot be discriminated against based on their beliefs or who they are, but a person should not be forced to promote beliefs they disagree with within their beliefs.

Hence you are muddling the issue here

Its the belief being promoted that is objected to, not a cake being made for a gay couple.
If it was the later, then the bakery would be discriminating. Just as the gay couple would be discriminating against the religious couple by trying to force them to promote a belief on a cake they disagree with.

Hence equality

To me this was a couple of militant gays, trying to make a stash of money.

It's as much my business as it is yours, so what tf you on about?

Not when you are trying to push your beliefs on others

That is inequality

In other words, stop trying to force your beliefs on others

You are not going to change people that way

So its naff all to do with you and that couple has to have their rights protected as much as yours.

It has naff all to with you either tbh.

There. You see how pointless that line is?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why Les should be speaking for all gay people, or why it's not his business if he's not.

It's not clear to me if the owners would have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, or if it was just the message on that particular cake they objected to.

That's my main concern tbh, and this ruling does not make it clear which way that would go.

I do think it's a difficult one Les and, unlike you, I wouldn't expect a gay baker who supported gay marriage to decorate a cake with a message saying "ban gay marriage". All this equality re services is all very well, but it doesn't take into account people's personal feelings.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not when you are trying to push your beliefs on others

That is inequality

In other words, stop trying to force your beliefs on others

You are not going to change people that way

So its naff all to do with you and that couple has to have their rights protected as much as yours.

It has naff all to with you either tbh.

There. You see how pointless that line is?

Oh but it does, when some gay miltants want to have their rights trump others

It proves they are illiberal and have a nasty agenda

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Not when you are trying to push your beliefs on others

That is inequality

In other words, stop trying to force your beliefs on others

You are not going to change people that way

So its naff all to do with you and that couple has to have their rights protected as much as yours.

It has naff all to with you either tbh.

There. You see how pointless that line is?

Oh but it does, when some gay miltants want to have their rights trump others

It proves they are illiberal and have a nasty agenda

Erm, as mentioned we have no idea if this also extends to Christian bakers not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gay people - so my concern is for those people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why Les should be speaking for all gay people, or why it's not his business if he's not.

It's not clear to me if the owners would have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, or if it was just the message on that particular cake they objected to.

That's my main concern tbh, and this ruling does not make it clear which way that would go.

I do think it's a difficult one Les and, unlike you, I wouldn't expect a gay baker who supported gay marriage to decorate a cake with a message saying "ban gay marriage". All this equality re services is all very well, but it doesn't take into account people's personal feelings.

But that extreme scenario would almost certainly never happen (and even IF it did it would extremely exceptional).

A gay couple requesting a gay wedding cake is hardly far-fetched though, is it. I dare say nearly every couple getting married has one

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think it's a difficult one Les and, unlike you, I wouldn't expect a gay baker who supported gay marriage to decorate a cake with a message saying "ban gay marriage". All this equality re services is all very well, but it doesn't take into account people's personal feelings.

But that extreme scenario would almost certainly never happen (and even IF it did it would extremely exceptional).

A gay couple requesting a gay wedding cake is hardly far-fetched though, is it. I dare say nearly every couple getting married has one

Yes, it's unlikely but it could happen.

A wedding cake doesn't necessarily have to have a message on it, it could just have roses or something. What we don't know is if the bakers would have objected to making such a cake just because it would be a for a gay wedding.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Oh but it does, when some gay miltants want to have their rights trump others

It proves they are illiberal and have a nasty agenda

Erm, as mentioned we have no idea if this also extends to Christian bakers not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gay people - so my concern is for those people.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Your concern is as seen to trump the rights of other people based on their beliefs.

That is not equality

Everyone should have equality under the law, but not at the expense of others.

There has to be a fine line

I mean if a Muslim baker did not want to bake a cake saying " I love Israel or Zionism" Then they have every right to refuse.

As it could very well go against their beliefs.

Just as a Man United fan could refuse to make a Man city cake

Its that simple

To be honest I think most of these cases have been engineered by Militant gays, as they can obtain wedding cakes in many stores. It seems they deliberately target certain bakeries to engineer these cases.

If you want to fight for the rights of gays, then do so in countries where they have little or none. Instead of trying to trump your beliefs over others

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think it's a difficult one Les and, unlike you, I wouldn't expect a gay baker who supported gay marriage to decorate a cake with a message saying "ban gay marriage". All this equality re services is all very well, but it doesn't take into account people's personal feelings.

But that extreme scenario would almost certainly never happen (and even IF it did it would extremely exceptional).

A gay couple requesting a gay wedding cake is hardly far-fetched though, is it. I dare say nearly every couple getting married has one

And there you have it.

How many gay weddings have there been?

How many have had wedding cakes made?

You just answered why this case should not even be an issue, as people have been easily able to have cakes made

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think it's a difficult one Les and, unlike you, I wouldn't expect a gay baker who supported gay marriage to decorate a cake with a message saying "ban gay marriage". All this equality re services is all very well, but it doesn't take into account people's personal feelings.

But that extreme scenario would almost certainly never happen (and even IF it did it would extremely exceptional).

A gay couple requesting a gay wedding cake is hardly far-fetched though, is it. I dare say nearly every couple getting married has one

Yes, it's unlikely but it could happen.

A wedding cake doesn't necessarily have to have a message on it, it could just have roses or something. What we don't know is if the bakers would have objected to making such a cake just because it would be a for a gay wedding.

Exactly, we don't know. In this particular case, the individuals who tried to get that cake made are honestly not really people I'd sympathise with, as they clearly did have an agenda and knew they'd get publicity. However, the point they raise is what interests me. I feel some cake shops might bake a standard cake for a gay couple (it should absolutely be against the law to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple at all). But I'd be much more opposed to this ruling IF it included allowing the refusal of a wedding cake that clearly was for a gay marriage (i.e. it had two men on top, or congratulations Peter and James ).

I think the kind of messages being talked about in the OP are silly, and overall if it were only about them I'd have less issue, but the implication could be broader.

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

If the baker refused to make the cake because he is against homosexuality he is wrong and no one should support that.
But why should he pipe words on a cake that go against his religious teachings?
If an atheist wanted a cake made with the words GOD DOESNT EXIST for eg....should he be in the wrong for refusing to do that?

Personally I dont think you should be in business if you cant cater for everyone, but then I dont hold strong religious views to hamper my thinking.

I've just had a conversation with a gay couple who run a pub , they wouldn't force anyone to bake them a cake especially Christians as they know it is against what they believe .
Great guys , can't fault them and they never mention they are gay they are just a loving couple who run a pub and happen to be great friends of me and my hubby .

They have supported our business for years that's how we met .

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

If the baker refused to make the cake because he is against homosexuality he is wrong and no one should support that.
But why should he pipe words on a cake that go against his religious teachings?
If an atheist wanted a cake made with the words GOD DOESNT EXIST for eg....should he be in the wrong for refusing to do that?

Personally I dont think you should be in business if you cant cater for everyone, but then I dont hold strong religious views to hamper my thinking.

Because ultimately it's just icing on a cake

By making a cake for an individual/s no one is promoting anything. I think people place too much importance on what cake making actually means. It isn't making a statement, it isn't endorsing anything, it isn't celebrating a cause. It is making a food item and decorating it for the pleasure of someone else in return for, usually, a good amount of money. Any ruling that allows cake makers to discriminate in this practice, in any way, is, in my opinion, wrong.

Sadly this is apparently one area where I don't agree with British law, as it turns out. Nevermind

I agree with your last sentence.

I think a Christian couple who run a bakery will have the word of God somewhere on display in their shop and I reckon this was an attempt to force the Christian couple to go against what they believe the bible says just so homosexuality could be forced upon them.

There must be hundreds of bakeries in Ireland without targeting a Christian bakery .

+1

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

could be wrong but i think that was the crux of the argument les. they didn't want to get involved in political issues.

they may well have been happy to put the names of the people ordering the cake, or a picture of them or whatever else they wanted but not political messages.

your comparison with mixed race cake is pointless. if mixed race marriages were still something new that people were only just coming to accept and the message wanted was ''support mixed race marriage'' presumably the answer would be the same

whether you agree with the political message or not, if your policy is not to get involved with political issues then that's how it should be

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

could be wrong but i think that was the crux of the argument les.  they didn't want to get involved in political issues.

they may well have been happy to put the names of the people ordering the cake, or a picture of them or whatever else they wanted but not political messages.

your comparison with mixed race cake is pointless.  if mixed race marriages were still something new that people were only just coming to accept and the message wanted was ''support mixed race marriage''  presumably the answer would be the same

whether you agree with the political message or not, if your policy is not to get involved with political issues then that's how it should be

The difference is that I do not see making a cake with any message as being involved in political issues. Ultimately it's just a cake that will be eaten

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:



If the baker refused to make the cake because he is against homosexuality he is wrong and no one should support that.
But why should he pipe words on a cake that go against his religious teachings?
If an atheist wanted a cake made with the words GOD DOESNT EXIST for eg....should he be in the wrong for refusing to do that?

Personally I dont think you should be in business if you cant cater for everyone, but then I dont hold strong religious views to hamper my thinking.

Because ultimately it's just icing on a cake  

By making a cake for an individual/s no one is promoting anything. I think people place too much importance on what cake making actually means. It isn't making a statement, it isn't endorsing anything, it isn't celebrating a cause. It is making a food item and decorating it for the pleasure of someone else in return for, usually, a good amount of money. Any ruling that allows cake makers to discriminate in this practice, in any way, is, in my opinion, wrong.

Sadly this is apparently one area where I don't agree with British law, as it turns out. Nevermind  

I agree with your last sentence.

It 's not just icing to the baker though, it was the words he was expected to write which his religious teachings oppose.

Maybe the couple should have asked for little pink flowers or something, no one could have objected to that surely.

Syl wrote:It 's not just icing to the baker though, it was the words he was expected to write which his religious teachings oppose.

It's a job and they are words.  He wasn't expected to live by them, or do anything at all.  Mix the icing and squeeze it onto a cake.


I don't think it will turn anyone gay to decorate a cake.  In this case, I think the baker is trying to impose his values on someone else.  Imagine if there were an emergency and he went to the hospital, and a gay physician said: "Eww...I can't touch him, I might turn straight!"

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It 's not just icing to the baker though, it was the words he was expected to write which his religious teachings oppose.

It's a job and they are words.  He wasn't expected to live by them, or do anything at all.  Mix the icing and squeeze it onto a cake.

I don't think it will turn anyone gay to decorate a cake.  In this case, I think the baker is trying to impose his values on someone else.  Imagine if there were an emergency and he went to the hospital, and a gay physician said: "Eww...I can't touch him, I might turn straight!"

Words are powerful, whether they are written in icing or ink.
I dont think it was the baker who was trying to impose his values on others, seems to me it was the other way round.

The gay couple could have gone to numerous bakers, ones who would be willing to write whatever they wanted on the cake, which I am sure 99% would have been happy to do so.

Its quite irritating to me when people think human rights only apply to them.

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

the thing is Eil, thats NOT apples and apples......

its apples and oranges

I would not be ok with em refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple, HOWEVER I WOULD agree with them refusing to make a cake saying support BLM.

Syl wrote:Its quite irritating to me when people think human rights only apply to them.

No one is thinking that. Not the people in the OP. Not the couple who refused to make the cake. Not gay people in general, nor Christians. Not Quill. Not me. No one. There is a disagreement on what should be expected of people who serve the public, that's all.

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Presumably y'all would be ok with refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple if it went against some caveman's precious 'beliefs'.

I admit that asking for a cake with the message 'support...' anything is clearly politically motivated, but the message of the result still sets a bad precedent.

And if you support this ruling but not the same on the mixed race example you are hypocrites. If you would support the right to refuse a cake showing a mixed race couple, then you are worse than a hypocrite...

the thing is Eil, thats NOT apples and apples......

its apples and oranges

I would not be ok with em refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple, HOWEVER    I WOULD agree with them refusing to make a cake saying support BLM.

What if they said that mixed race couples are something that is strongly against what they believe is right?

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:Its quite irritating to me when people think human rights only apply to them.

No one is thinking that. Not the people in the OP. Not the couple who refused to make the cake. Not gay people in general, nor Christians. Not Quill. Not me. No one. There is a disagreement on what should be expect of people who serve the public, that's all.

It's a family owned bakers, imo they have the right to not write something on a cake they vehemently dont believe in.
If it was an employee and the cake was commisioned to be made they should do the job or leave.
I still dont understand why they took the job in the first place though....were the offending (to the baker) words added as an afterthought.

Eilzel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

the thing is Eil, thats NOT apples and apples......

its apples and oranges

I would not be ok with em refusing to make a cake showing a mixed race couple, HOWEVER    I WOULD agree with them refusing to make a cake saying support BLM.

What if they said that mixed race couples are something that is strongly against what they believe is right?

I see we are back to apples and apples again

And what if using your example it was a cake promoting a Palestinian Arab marrying a Israeli Jew and the owner was either Israeli or Arab and refused?

Now I would certainly object to either shop refusing such a mixed marriage cake, but do they still not have a right to refuse to make such a cake?

The answer is yes they can refuse

Are you going to force them to do so, with such animosity between both sides?

Your Business, you decide what you want to do !

Syl wrote:Words are powerful, whether they are written in icing or ink.

Words are only powerful when they plug into reality. If you say the sky is a beautiful blue, it different from saying the house you are in is on fire. Icing on a cake is a harmless description, not words of action.

Syl wrote:I dont think it was the baker who was trying to impose his values on others, seems to me it was the other way round.

The gay couple could have gone to numerous bakers, ones who would be willing to write whatever they wanted on the cake, which I am sure 99% would have been happy to do so.

In analyzing the morality of any act, you have to begin with the act itself: the baker's refusal. That act is the imposition. Had he not refused, there would be no moral dilemma at all.

And, shifting the blame to the bible is just evading the question, why? It's a kind of impotence in the presence of God. In other words, God made me do this evil thing.

It's interesting that you shift to an argument of available alternatives as a prop for justifying moral action ("could have gone to numerous bakers"). The availability of alternatives is a consequentialist argument, when in fact there is no justification for the refusal in the first place.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Words are powerful, whether they are written in icing or ink.

Words are only powerful when they plug into reality.  If you say the sky is a beautiful blue, it different from saying the house you are in is on fire.  Icing on a cake is a harmless description, not words of action.

Syl wrote:I dont think it was the baker who was trying to impose his values on others, seems to me it was the other way round.

The gay couple could have gone to numerous bakers, ones who would be willing to write whatever they wanted on the cake, which I am sure 99% would have been happy to do so.

In analyzing the morality of any act, you have to begin with the act itself: the baker's refusal.  That act is the imposition. Had he not refused, there would be no moral dilemma at all.

And, shifting the blame to the bible is just evading the question, why?  It's a kind of impotence in the presence of God.  In other words, God made me do this evil thing.

It's interesting that you shift to an argument of available alternatives as a prop for justifying moral action ("could have gone to numerous bakers").  The availability of alternatives is a consequentialist argument, when in fact there is no justification for the refusal in the first place.

That is as absurd as your hate of Republicans, with your democrat beliefs making you hate them

Hence the absurdity of such an argument

At the end of the day someones rights cannot trump anothers rights

Its as simple as that

Homosexuals rightly have the same equality under the law

As do religious people

Neither should trump the other

As based on your view, God is making religious people do evil things, by coercing women to wear the hijkab, sikhs the turban etc

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Words are powerful, whether they are written in icing or ink.

Words are only powerful when they plug into reality.  If you say the sky is a beautiful blue, it different from saying the house you are in is on fire.  Icing on a cake is a harmless description, not words of action.

Syl wrote:I dont think it was the baker who was trying to impose his values on others, seems to me it was the other way round.

The gay couple could have gone to numerous bakers, ones who would be willing to write whatever they wanted on the cake, which I am sure 99% would have been happy to do so.

In analyzing the morality of any act, you have to begin with the act itself: the baker's refusal.  That act is the imposition. Had he not refused, there would be no moral dilemma at all.

And, shifting the blame to the bible is just evading the question, why?  It's a kind of impotence in the presence of God.  In other words, God made me do this evil thing.

It's interesting that you shift to an argument of available alternatives as a prop for justifying moral action ("could have gone to numerous bakers").  The availability of alternatives is a consequentialist argument, when in fact there is no justification for the refusal in the first place.

Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Words are powerful, whether they are written in icing or ink.

Words are only powerful when they plug into reality.  If you say the sky is a beautiful blue, it different from saying the house you are in is on fire.  Icing on a cake is a harmless description, not words of action.

Syl wrote:I dont think it was the baker who was trying to impose his values on others, seems to me it was the other way round.

The gay couple could have gone to numerous bakers, ones who would be willing to write whatever they wanted on the cake, which I am sure 99% would have been happy to do so.

In analyzing the morality of any act, you have to begin with the act itself: the baker's refusal.  That act is the imposition. Had he not refused, there would be no moral dilemma at all.

And, shifting the blame to the bible is just evading the question, why?  It's a kind of impotence in the presence of God.  In other words, God made me do this evil thing.

It's interesting that you shift to an argument of available alternatives as a prop for justifying moral action ("could have gone to numerous bakers").  The availability of alternatives is a consequentialist argument, when in fact there is no justification for the refusal in the first place.

Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

That's because, with all due respect, as a society we still entertain beliefs in an invisible supreme being as a viable reason for allowing backward views and actions (e.g. the burkha, ritual slaughter, circumcision and yes, opposing gay marriage).