Gay Cake Controversy!

floggg

FunLover18 wrote: »

They're entitled to these beliefs though (wrong as you and I both know they are) and they're entitled not to want to put their name to a message which contradicts those beliefs.

They are only entitled to do so within the limits of equality law.

I don't know if they have crossed the limits in this case or not as I don't have all the facts (not does anybody here).

There is however the potential for their apparent policy to be applied in a manner contrary to the legislation. People are however making bald statements as to what they are or are not entitled to do without seeming to be aware of that legislation however.

floggg

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately it has been going around in circles because despite very clear information from a number of posters concerning the ECs actions in this matter / some posters are replacing what happened with an alternative version of reality

It is quite clear under equality legislation that to refuse to serve a customised cake in a customised cake shop to a person representing a particular sexual orientation on the basis that the order does not agree with the owners religious views on specific sexual orientation is in contravention of specific equality legislation. It's not me saying this by the way - this is the initial finding of the EC. I would reckon they have handled at least a number of cases like this already...

I doubt that this is the first case of its type the EC has had to deal with. They have the remit to make a determination in this case and I am sure that they have legal and legislative advisors who are employed to ensure that their determinations are valid.

It's not quite clear that it's contrary to be honest - I can see that they could apply a general rule against advocacy cakes on which case they could refuse. That would also however have to include banning cakes whose message they did agree with.

We don't have that information so we can only speculate at the the minute.

mackerski

Mrs Doyle: There's always time for a nice cup of tea. Sure, didn't the Lord himself pause for a nice cup of tea before giving himself up for the world.
Father Ted: No, he didn't, Mrs Doyle!
Mrs Doyle: Well, whatever the equivalent they had for tea in those days, cake or something. And speaking of cake, I have cake!

TireeTerror

So many posts about a non-topic. Who cares if a cake is gay or not?

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

No, they declined a service based on their religious beliefs on marriage, there is no reference whatsoever to their religious beliefs on homosexuality (unless you can find me one) in the same way that they've previously denied services based on their religious beliefs on language of pornography. Beliefs which they are perfectly entitled to have.

The message to be written on the cake read 'Support Gay Marriage' so my apologies I should have said Gay not homosexual' and they said as pointed out "This Order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches".

Believe it or not Discrimination on sexual orientation is one of the grounds of the relevant equality legislation. I'm afraid a right to foul language or pornography is not. Certainly a belief may be held by a person but they cannot discriminate against another person because of that belief

As has been mentioned before the fact that the customer was a representative of a specific group is irrelevant. I could go up to Belfast tomorrow and order the same cake and they'd still decline me, not because my sexuality (I'm heeterosexual) but because of their religious beliefs on marriage which they are entitled to do.

I have already discussed the issue the person who ordered that cake in light what the EC has already said. You or I can't change that I'm afraid. Why would you do as you suggest then? I presume you would report the Bakery for discrimination or at least be a bit peeved if you ordered a cake for your girlfriend and they refused on the basis that she was a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

ebbsy

There is nothing wrong with thinking that marriage should be between a man and woman only.

Fair play to the makers of that cake.

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

The message to be written on the cake read 'Support Gay Marriage' so my apologies I should have said Gay not homosexual' and they said as pointed out "This Order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches".

Believe it or not Discrimination on sexual orientation is one of the grounds of the relevant equality legislation. I'm afraid a right to foul language or pornography is not. Certainly a belief may be held by a person but they cannot discriminate against another person because of that belief

But they didn't discriminate based on the customer's sexual orientation. Refusing to bake him a birthday cake because of his sexuality WOULD be discrimination. Refusing to bake him a cake which bears a message they don't agree with is not discrimination.

gozunda wrote: »

I have already discussed the issue the person who ordered that cake in light what the EC has already said. You or I can't change that I'm afraid. Why would you do as you suggest then? I presume you would report the Bakery for discrimination or at least be a bit peeved if you ordered a cake for your girlfriend and they refused on the basis you were living together and not married?

It depends on the cake. If I was order her a "happy birthday" cake and they decline because of our living situation I'd be peeved. If they declined to bake a cake with the message "living in sin for life" I wouldn't be peeved at all. In that instance do my rights to a customised cake really come ahead of the bakers religious freedom?

jimgoose

gozunda

floggg wrote: »

It's not quite clear that it's contrary to be honest - I can see that they could apply a general rule against advocacy cakes on which case they could refuse. That would also however have to include banning cakes whose message they did agree with.

We don't have that information so we can only speculate at the the minute.

Re contrary - this has been already stated in the letter sent by the EC to the Bakery See page 2

Jester252

The baker can do what he wants with his business. If he doesn't want to make gay pride, he doesn't have to. He just needs to expect a hit to his business.

darkpagandeath

Jester252 wrote: »

The baker can do what he wants with his business. If he doesn't want to make gay pride, he doesn't have to. He just needs to expect a hit to his business.

True but we have laws about discrimination, And tbh writing something on a cake in no way says you believe in it so i think he's fine that way.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

But they didn't discriminate based on the customer's sexual orientation. Refusing to bake him a birthday cake because of his sexuality WOULD be discrimination. Refusing to bake him a cake which bears a message they don't agree with is not discrimination.

You haven't read any of the posts previously? The Bakery representative clearly stated that "This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches" Repeat 'this order' not the message, not the colour of the icing, not the use of Bert and Ernie but the whole caboodle - the cake, icing the lot. There is no mention of 'the message' at all as the reason in the bakery's video.


As stated I have based my reply on the facts as they now stand. See the link for clarification. If you wish to substitute an alternate reality that's ok.

There was no cake with or without the message - by refusing service it was discrimination. Splitting hairs or cakes and icing in this case doesn't work.

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/ashers-letter-hq.jpg

FunLover18 wrote: »

It depends on the cake. If I was order her a "happy birthday" cake and they decline because of our living situation I'd be peeved. If they declined to bake a cake with the message "living in sin for life" I wouldn't be peeved at all. In that instance do my rights to a customised cake really come ahead of the bakers religious freedom?

I don't get the instance that a perceived religious infringement is only against such beliefs and actionable when written down?

Annasopra

Jester252 wrote: »

The baker can do what he wants with his business.

within law

old hippy

FunLover18 wrote: »

The gay community are the ones who brought this into public knowledge not Ashers. Ashers didn't come out and say "Aren't we great we decided not to bake a cake supporting gay marriage". They weren't spreading any message, they merely declined (in a private phone call) to spread a message they didn't believe in.

The entire gay community brought this into public knowledge? And the entire Christian bakers community have declined, have they?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's going in circles because some people think that people have no right to disagree with them.

Or some people think the belief systems in place are discriminatory.

TireeTerror wrote: »

So many posts about a non-topic. Who cares if a cake is gay or not?

You obviously do.

ebbsy wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with thinking that marriage should be between a man and woman only.

Fair play to the makers of that cake.

There's nothing wrong with thinking bigoted thoughts, no. It's when you voice them and put them into action, that's where the problem is.

Fair play to the activists.

RobertKK

Discussing it on Newstalk now.

Politically motivated says one, the other disagrees....

floggg

gozunda wrote: »

Re contrary - this has been already stated in the letter sent by the EC to the Bakery See page 2

I am surprised at the way that wrote that.

It is contrary to the principles of natural justice for them to make a determination that the bakery has breached the law without first giving them an opportunity to put forward a defence.

This doesn't appear to have been done so no determination could rightly be made.

While I'm not familiar with the NI legislation I would be very surprised if they were empowered to make a determination that there has been a breach of law without hearing the bakers side.

I would suspect that no determination of fact can actually be until the court receives the complaint, and the "conclusion" that there has been a breach is premature and likely not one that has been validly made.

kunst nugget

RobertKK wrote: »

Discussing it on Newstalk now.

Politically motivated says one, the other disagrees....

Both are saying it's politically motivated.

Donkey Oaty

Anne Widdecome (aka Doris Karloff) has backed the bakery in this, and the Pink News ("Europe's largest gay news service") has carried the story.

Here's an interesting comment by one reader:

My instinct is always to disagree with Ann Widdecombe, but when it comes to the cake I can't. Equality laws are there to protect individuals from being unfairly denied goods, services, or employment. They are not there to compel people to provide a platform for political views they don't share. Otherwise, the no platform policies that we all clamour for (gay cure adverts on TfL buses, the World Congress of Families hosting a media circus at the Law Society, etc) are just as invalid.

Hande hoche!

FunLover18 wrote: »

Don't tell me Sky News has missed out on Brooksgate?

Just saw a report on it. :pac:

Corkfeen

Corkfeen wrote: »

Out of interest would you have viewed a cake that supported interracial marriage in sixties America as propaganda? I find it highly amusing what you classify as propaganda.

They wanted a message on the cake that they knew would offend the bakery owners religious leaning. They could have had the cake made elsewhere, but then they wouldn't have gotten the publicity they have. I have no problem with the message, it's the way they are using the bakery for free publicity I have a problem with.
Propoganda is information with a biased message used to promote a cause or a point of view, so yes, I would consider it propoganda.

dxhound2005

What is being promoted by the message on the cake is illegal. The parliament in the North has refused to make it legal. Some people think it should be legal and they are entitled to campaign for that. Some people think it should remain illegal and they are also entitled to their point of view.

It is wrong for an arm of the state to force a business to do something which supports the thing which is illegal if the owners of that business want it to remain illegal.

Jester252

darkpagandeath wrote: »

True but we have laws about discrimination, And tbh writing something on a cake in no way says you believe in it so i think he's fine that way.

But was the cake refused becaue it was order by a lgbt group or because it displayed a political message.

Jester252

Jester252 wrote: »

But was the cake refused becaue it was order by a lgbt group or because it displayed a political message.

Because of the message.

Greenmachine

What if a catholic priest asked a gay baker to bake cake with the message.
Marraige: It's a man/woman thing.
It is what they believe.

Jester252

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because of the message.

In that case the argument can be made that the baker doesn't do political changed goods in order to stay neutral and not cause discomfort of other customers who might have a different view.

I think the lgbt group or the discrimination board might also be in trouble for posting the letter that the baker receive.

gozunda

Jester252 wrote: »

But was the cake refused becaue it was order by a lgbt group or because it displayed a political message.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because of the message.

This is incorrect. There are no references to the message being ever mentioned as a reason the bakery would not provide a cake. The Bakery representative clearly stated that

"This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches"

The person who made the cake order was a representative of a group that appear to be made up of LGBT individuals. The cake was ordered for a function.

By taking the order and then refusing to provide that service ie making customised cakes they opened themselves to a claim of discrimination under the Equality Acts.

The message is largely irrelevant to what happened which is that the Equality Council believe that the Bakery has breached Equality legislation in relation to discrimination relevant to sexual orientation.

Much of this has already been discussed in previous posts. However it would appear there may be some information unaccounted for ie the Bakeries reply to the complainant / Equality Council.

Jester252

gozunda wrote: »

This is incorrect. There are no references to the message being ever mentioned as a reason the bakery would not provide a cake. The Bakery representative clearly stated that

"This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches"

The person who made that order was a representative of a group that appear to be made up of LGBT individuals. The cake was ordered for a function.

By taking the order and then refusing to provide that service ie making customised coalesce they opened themselves to a claim of discrimination under the Equality Acts.

Much of this has already been discussed in previous posts. However it would appear there may be some information unaccounted for ie the Bakeries reply to the complainant / Equality Council.

If the order was for a cake with a pro same sex marriage message, that I read in other posts, then the bakers reply is pointing the problem to the message.

gozunda

Jester252 wrote: »

If the order was for a cake with a pro same sex marriage message, that I read in other posts, then the bakers reply is pointing the problem to the message.

The message has become largely irrelevant because the bakery representative clearly stated that "This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches". The message is not highlighted, not the cake bit, not the icing but the order of a cake made by the representative of the LGBT group.

Jester252

gozunda wrote: »

The message has become irrelevant because the bakery representative clearly stated that "This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches". The message is not highlighted, not the cake bit, not the icing but the order of a cake made by the representative of the LGBT group.

The order includes the message. Also seen as he uses "This order" he never said he had an issue with the people who placed the order.

gozunda

Jester252 wrote: »

The order includes the message. Also seen as he uses "This order" he never said he had an issue with the people who placed the order.

Take a read back through the posts on previous pages. It's all there including the letter sent to the bakery by the EC. The issue with that the discrimination is embodied in the person who made the order and was refused service. The order didn't turn up at the bakery on its own. Where a person is refused a service and they believe they were discriminated because of sexual orientation or other reasons including race, religion, gender etc they can bring a case. Read the letter a few posts back for further clarification.

Jester252

gozunda wrote: »

Take a read back through the posts on previous pages. It's all there including the letter sent to the bakery by the EC. The issue with that the discrimination is embodied in the person who made the order and was refused service. The order didn't turn up at the bakery on its own. Where a person is refused a service and they believe they were discriminated because of sexual orientation or other reasons including race, religion, gender etc they can bring a case. Read the letter a few posts back for further clarification.

I read the letter. Just because someone felt discriminated doesn't mean they were.

gozunda

Jester252 wrote: »

I read the letter. Just because someone felt discriminated doesn't mean they were.

That was the letter from the EC - they have stated that the bakery is in breach of legislation. Maybe take it up with them? But at the end of the day the bakery clearly refused the individuals order.

kowloon

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd be annoyed if a black bakery owner couldn't refuse custom to white harassers. Or the latest irish branch of the kkk

I was just trying to say Cake. I have a stutter and it came out badly.

dxhound2005

gozunda wrote: »

This is incorrect. There are no references to the message being ever mentioned as a reason the bakery would not provide a cake. The Bakery representative clearly stated that

"This order was at odds with our beliefs and in contradiction with what the Bible teaches"

The person who made the cake order was a representative of a group that appear to be made up of LGBT individuals. The cake was ordered for a function.

By taking the order and then refusing to provide that service ie making customised cakes they opened themselves to a claim of discrimination under the Equality Acts.

The message is largely irrelevant to what happened which is that the Equality Council believe that the Bakery has breached Equality legislation in relation to discrimination relevant to sexual orientation.

Much of this has already been discussed in previous posts. However it would appear there may be some information unaccounted for ie the Bakeries reply to the complainant / Equality Council.

But there is no heading in the equality legislation covering marriage. The message on the cake is Support Gay Marriage. Gay marriage is not recognised by the state. So it cannot breach equality legislation to refuse to provide goods which support it.

If the order had been refused because the person who placed it had identified themselves as being gay then that would come under the equality legislation. Being gay is recognised as a particular sexual orientation which is equal to others but having the right to gay marriage is outlawed and a business should not be forced to provide goods which supports something which is outlawed.

They might just as easily have refused to put Legalise Cannabis on the cake and there could be no case against them under the equality legislation unless the person who placed the order identified themselves as being gay and that was the reason the order was refused. Bakeries should not be forced to put political messages on their cakes if they don't want to.

FunLover18

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006

5. (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services —
(a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section.

As far as I can see Ashers are perfectly within their rights under Section B. Unless the EC can prove that Ashers would have baked the order for heterosexual client … which is unlikely given that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs.

Case closed.

Awkward Badger

FunLover18 wrote: »

As far as I can see Ashers are perfectly within their rights under Section B. Unless the EC can prove that Ashers would have baked the order for heterosexual client … which is unlikely given that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs.

Case Cake closed.

FYP.

gozunda

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But there is no heading in the equality legislation covering marriage. The message on the cake is Support Gay Marriage. Gay marriage is not recognised by the state. So it cannot breach equality legislation to refuse to provide goods which support it.

......
.

Boy! that is quite the most mixed up logic I have met in a long time.

As clearly stated the breach of Equality legislation was that the bakery discriminated in not providing a service on the basis of the customers sexual orientation by their own admission. The customer asked for a cake - no cake was provided. The 'message' is of no relevance whatsoever.
Please read the Equality Commission letter if the logic of this needs further clarification ok?

Btw are you suggesting those who are Gay all smoke dope?!!!

Awkward Badger

gozunda wrote: »

Boy! that is quite the most mixed up logic I have met in a long time.

As clearly stated the breach of Equality legislation was that the bakery discriminated in not providing a service on the basis of the customers sexual orientation by their own admission. The customer asked for a cake - no cake was provided. The 'message' is of no relevance whatsoever.
Please read the Equality Commission letter if the logic of this needs further clarification ok?

Show me this please. The bakery admitting that it was the sexuality of the customer and not the cake that was the reason they declined to make it.

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

Boy! that is quite the most mixed up logic I have met in a long time.

As clearly stated the breach of Equality legislation was that the bakery discriminated in not providing a service on the basis of the customers sexual orientation by their own admission. The customer asked for a cake - no cake was provided. The 'message' is of no relevance whatsoever.
Please read the Equality Commission letter if the logic of this needs further clarification ok?

Go read the Equality Act this beloved letter of your refers to. Any customer could have asked for that cake and Ashers would have declined. No discrimination.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

As far as I can see Ashers are perfectly within their rights under Section B. Unless the EC can prove that Ashers would have baked the order for heterosexual client … which is unlikely given that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs.

Case closed.

Lol
You might want to reference the exact act that you are quoting. All I can suggest is that you take it up with the Equality Commission and tell them you have sorted it for them and they are evidently wrong. The EC don't have to prove any imaginary scenario...

Ps Section B doesn't make any sense with what you have put forward as the 'solution'.

I doubt somehow. The 'case' will not be solved by keyboard warriors anyway

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

Lol
You might want to reference the exact act that you are quoting. All I can suggest is that you take it up with the Equality Commission and tell them you have sorted it for them and they are evidently wrong.

Ps Section B doesn't make any sense with what you have put forward as the 'solution'...

It's the equality act your EC letter is harping on about. It basically says that is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. Ashers would not have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality therefore no discrimination unless the EC can prove otherwise

Maybe read it for yourself http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/5/made

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Show me this please. The bakery admitting that it was the sexuality of the customer and not the cake that was the reason they declined to make it.

Done that and It's all there several posts back. I'm not going over it again. If it's not clear I would suggest maybe contacting the EC in the north. They should be able to explain in the appropriate terminology.

Awkward Badger

gozunda wrote: »

Done that and It's all there several posts back. I'm not going over it again. If it's not clear I would suggest maybe contacting the EC in the north. They should be able to explain in the appropriate terminology.

I'd wager you're "not going over it all again" because there is no such thing. The bakery never admitted to discriminating against a customer because of their sexuality. And that their issue was solely in relation to the cake/order and not the customer or the customers sexuality.

I think you are taking the EC accusation as fact and then trying to bend all else around it. Problem is its not fact, its simply an accusation. And its an accusation which as far as I see has absolutely no foundation.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's the equality act your EC letter is harping on about. It basically says that is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. Ashers would not have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality therefore no discrimination unless the EC can prove otherwise

Maybe read it for yourself http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/5/made

Thanks I have but it is usual to reference any material quoted so someone who hasn't can check it out. However It still makes no sense in relation to your logic I'm afraid...

FunLover18

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks I have but it is usual to Terence any material quoted so someone who hasn't can check it out. However It still makes no sense in relation to your logic I'm afraid...

I'm not familiar with the term Terence but I will apologise for not making it clear what legislation I was quoting.

I'm using the logic of the legislation, you do know the difference between an order and the person who places the order don't you. If you'd rather believe the EC's botched interpretation of the legislation rather than the legislation itself there's no point arguing with you any further.

gozunda

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the term Terence but I will apologise for not making it clear what legislation I was quoting.

I'm using the logic of the legislation, you do know the difference between an order and the person who places the order don't you. If you'd rather believe the EC's botched interpretation of the legislation rather than the legislation itself there's no point arguing with you any further.

That of course should be 'reference'. The legislation doesn't have the 'logic' - it was your argument that I failed to fine any logic in relation to what you quoted. What you have abstracted is legislation. Legislation must be interpreted and as the EC employs specialists in this field - I really doubt that they have botched anything as you have put it...As I said maybe contact them and tell them you've worked it all out.

Bye

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I'd wager you're "not going over it all again" because there is no such thing. The bakery never admitted to discriminating against a customer because of their sexuality. And that their issue was solely in relation to the cake/order and not the customer or the customers sexuality.

I think you are taking the EC accusation as fact and then trying to bend all else around it. Problem is its not fact, its simply an accusation. And its an accusation which as far as I see has absolutely no foundation.

If you check back it was a reply to one of your very own posts ... I really am amazed at the number of technical and legislative experts here. But you are of course welcome to your opinion. Enjoy.

Awkward Badger

gozunda wrote: »

If you check back it was a reply to one of your very own posts ... I really am amazed at the number of technical and legislative experts here. But you are of course welcome to your opinion. Enjoy.

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

gozunda

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

By the way - that's your wording - I may Used a different phrasing but It's there - sorry if you didn't follow it. The explanation is not as linear as you obviously think it should be. But anyway no matter. Though I do believe you are mixing up fact and your own personal belief which is not quite the same thing. Tbh if I had to place a bet on it I think I would go with the ECs interpretation of the relevant legislation. As I suggested you could always send your solution to the EC and see what they make of it. - they have a very good website...The matter is to proceed further for resolution so it will be interesting to see what the actual outcome will be.

floggg

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I checked back. There is no admittance of discriminating based on the customers sexuality in anything you posted. I also don't think anyone is claiming to be an expert here. But you seem to he claiming that the equality commission cannot be wrong and that their accusation is as good as fact in determining the guilt of the bakery.

Given the bakery are not going to back down I doubt well see the usual payment of compensation without admittance of guilt on this one. And I think the equality authority will be found pretty lacking when it comes to putting forth a case of discrimination based on the sexuality of the customer. Given its quite clear to anyone who's willing to see it that it was the order itself that was the issue and not the person who placed it.

You are correct in saying there doesn't appear to be any determination as to whether there has been a breach. Despite the wording of the letter, they have only received a complaint which does not appear to be investigated yet.

You appear to be taking an over simplified view of discrimination, which suggests a lack of familiarity with how the legislation is applied. It is not entirely clear whether they have discriminated or not.

The could for example be found to be indirectly discriminating if they generally permit cakes which "advocate" for a particular cause, except for lgbt causes.

we arent in a position to know either way, as we don't know what policies or practise they have either way.

anybody saying its clear either way at this stage is talking through their arse.