Gay Cake Controversy!

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you read back through the thread, there are lots of people on both sides arguing the law with judges, and I am not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know if the judgment is correct legally per existing law or not.

But I can very easily imagine scenarios where a bigoted majority can use this "cakes are speech" excuse to refuse service to a minority. And I would very much like to avoid allowing a sectarian divide in simple services like bakeries, florists and newsagents shops.

The judgment is at pains to say that Mr Lee was not refused service because he was gay, or because he was somebody who held the opinion that equal marriage should be legalised. If that had been the case, Ashers would have lost.

I've no doubt that some groups will try to invoke this case to justify discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or political opinion. But those who oppose such discrimination should not be handing them ammunition by treating the case as something which justifies this. It definitely isn't.

Riskymove

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So people have to fight it, all of it, or it will be everywhere.

I think many us understand that and would not agree with what the position of the baker

But that doesn't change the law or make his position discriminatory

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I've no doubt that some groups will try to invoke this case to justify discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or political opinion. But those who oppose such discrimination should not be handing them ammunition by treating the case as something which justifies this. It definitely isn't.

The folks at Ashers say that they did not discriminate against Lee because he was gay, and that is accepted by the court.

But their action in this case, has the same effect - their refusal can only hurt gay people (not much, it is true, but we don't allow illegal discrimination based on it being rather ineffective).

The Supreme Court was at some pains to point out that the lower courts had judged this to be a case of direct discrimination and that was what they over-ruled, but it seems to me that in principle (if not law - I am not a lawyer) this can be seen as indirect discrimination - refusing to supply a product or service which only a member of a protected group would want.

Imagine if the baker refused to make a cake with a mixed race couple on top, and when sued, claimed that is not racial discrimination because white folks can't have a mixed race couple on their cake either.

As a defense, it would be laughed out of court, yet that is precisely what you are using to defend Ashers, that a heterosexual customer can also not order a pro-gay-rights cake so they're grand.

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

But that doesn't change the law or make his position discriminatory

As I have said, I don't know if this is legal or not, and several judges who know a lot more law than me have disagreed with one another on the subject.

I am much more interested in whether it SHOULD be legal than whether it IS.

blanch152

gozunda wrote: »

Good for you. Personally I think " happy birthday" is an gratuitously presumptuous type sentinent and shouldn't be allowed either ...

But there you go ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

And if you are a baker in Northern Ireland, you would be within your rights not to put "happy birthday" on a cake, thanks to the UK Supreme Court.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I think the key aspect to this case is imo is that if the bakery was approached and asked to do a wedding style cake with a pair of grooms on top for a commitment ceremony would the bakery say yes.

In my opinion they would. This reduces the argument as to one whether you can be forced to put out content supporting a political view.

You can't and that's a good thing. Its political and not about you as an individual.

If it was Christians could claim religious discrimination against them for not being allowed put anti abortion adds on Facebook during the abortion referendum.

It has as much legal argument as the gay cake issue.

suicide_circus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

or service which only a member of a protected group would want.

a swing and a miss there I'm afraid. Perfectly possible for a straight person to want to order a marriage equality cake, loads of straight people campaigned in favour of the marriage equality referendum.

Riskymove

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am much more interested in whether it SHOULD be legal than whether it IS.

You question whether it should be legal to refuse to ice a message you don't agree with?

Ok, so lets say a man had gone into the baker and asked for a cake to be iced with a message against same sex marriage. Do you think that the baker should have been compelled to ice that message even if he disagreed with it?

gozunda

blanch152 wrote: »

And if you are a baker in Northern Ireland, you would be within your rights not to put "happy birthday" on a cake, thanks to the UK Supreme Court.

Even If you make 'birthday cakes? ...

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

Ok, so lets say a man had gone into the baker and asked for a cake to be iced with a message against same sex marriage. Do you think that the baker should have been compelled to ice that message even if he disagreed with it?

Yes. Ashers had a leaflet about their build-your-own-cake service in their shop which did not put any limits on what you could or couldn't ask for. The people in the shop accepted the order. If their rules allow any sort of message, then they should ice any sort of message.

The only exception I can think of is if the message is somehow itself illegal - libellous, obscene, blasphemous (in some jurisdictions).

For those who think that the bakery did nothing wrong, how exactly should they write this rule in their leaflet? Not so easy to write "No pro-gay messages!" in a rule that doesn't look discriminatory.

"The Baker reserves the right to refuse any message which disagrees with their narrow interpretation of the KJV" leaves open the possibility of the baker rejecting catholic, nationalist, anti-racist or pro-feminist messages based on the Bible, thereby discriminating (indirectly) against people based on gender, religion, ethnicity or nationality.

Riskymove

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes.

ok then and you are entitled to your view on what the law SHOULD be

Ashers had a leaflet about their build-your-own-cake service in their shop which did not put any limits on what you could or couldn't ask for. The people in the shop accepted the order. If their rules allow any sort of message, then they should ice any sort of message.

It is quite common to see messages such as "Service at owners discretion" or similar. Nothing compels them, presently, to set out all the rules.

For those who think that the bakery did nothing wrong, how exactly should they write this rule in their leaflet?

They did not do anything illegal in NI

I am sure plenty of us don't agree with their actions but that is different

In terms of message, as above

"Bakery retains right to not fulfil any particular order"

"The Baker reserves the right to refuse any message which disagrees with their narrow interpretation of the KJV" leaves open the possibility of the baker rejecting catholic, nationalist, anti-racist or pro-feminist messages based on the Bible, thereby discriminating (indirectly) against people based on gender, religion, ethnicity or nationality.

It is up to them to defend any claims of discrimination, as in this case

All that the current case found is that the customer was not discriminated against directly because of his sexual orientation.

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

It is quite common to see messages such as "Service at owners discretion" or similar. Nothing compels them, presently, to set out all the rules.

Sure, and it is also common for people who believe they are being discriminated against to sue and win despite those signs.

I repeat the question: if they had to write in the leaflet what they will not do, how can they write it so that it is not obviously discriminatory?

If it can't be done, then simply not writing it down does not make the discrimination go away.

Riskymove

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sure, and it is also common for people who believe they are being discriminated against to sue and win despite those signs.


If it can't be done, then simply not writing it down does not make the discrimination go away.

yes but again you are talking about direct discrimination, which the supreme court decided did not happen

if you don't allow someone into a bar you run, for example, you must defend the claim that it was because the person was gay/non-white/whatever

The bar does not have to set out all the reasons that they may not let someone in.



In the baker case, if their defence was that because of their beliefs they could not serve a gay man, they would have lost.


The struggle with this case is that the matter is kind of about "If I discriminate against everyone, do I actually discriminate against any one individual"

I repeat the question: if they had to write in the leaflet what they will not do, how can they write it so that it is not obviously discriminatory?

I cannot help with hypothetical answers to hypothetical laws

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

yes but again you are talking about direct discrimination, which the supreme court decided did not happen

No, I am not.

I accept that whatever the rule is, it will not say "we will not sell cakes to gays".

It will be some version of "We will not sell cakes with messages which promote the sin of Sodom."

CIARAN_BOYLE

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I am not.

I accept that whatever the rule is, it will not say "we will not sell cakes to gays".

It will be some version of "We will not sell cakes with messages which promote the sin of Sodom."

I would imagine that if you had to include a rule which you dont something along thr lines of

We will not advocate for political causes with which we do not agreed.

Ragnar Lothbrok

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I would imagine that if you had to include a rule which you dont something along thr lines of

We will not advocate for political causes with which we do not agreed.

This seems perfectly logical and fair. It's not discriminating against an individual or group, while at the same time defending the rights of the business owner to defend their own conscience.

I imagine that if Asher's had been legally obliged to make the so-called gay cake cake in the first place, they would have made the most awful tasting cake in history

Zubeneschamali

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

We will not advocate for political causes with which we do not agreed.

I could use a vague rule like that to defend racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and homophobia.

"Girl power!" No, don't agree.
"CONGRATS ON YOUR COMMUNION" NO, popery
Welcome Estonians! Don't hold with immigration
Support gay marriagw" oops been there

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The folks at Ashers say that they did not discriminate against Lee because he was gay, and that is accepted by the court.

But their action in this case, has the same effect - their refusal can only hurt gay people (not much, it is true, but we don't allow illegal discrimination based on it being rather ineffective).

The Supreme Court was at some pains to point out that the lower courts had judged this to be a case of direct discrimination and that was what they over-ruled, but it seems to me that in principle (if not law - I am not a lawyer) this can be seen as indirect discrimination - refusing to supply a product or service which only a member of a protected group would want.

Imagine if the baker refused to make a cake with a mixed race couple on top, and when sued, claimed that is not racial discrimination because white folks can't have a mixed race couple on their cake either.

As a defense, it would be laughed out of court, yet that is precisely what you are using to defend Ashers, that a heterosexual customer can also not order a pro-gay-rights cake so they're grand.

You talk a lot of sense a lot of the time, but on this one you are wrong.

Imagine if someone had rocked up to the Ashers, a deeply conservative unionist business, and had said, please put a message on our cake that says "The IRA won and unionists suck", would you think it ok for them to refuse on the basis the message offended them?

Manic Moran

gozunda wrote: »

I ♥️ Norn Iron....

At least they're honest about it, but I don't see them winning if it came to a court case.

They accepted the contract, they accepted the money, and it was a one-time-only event. Giving the money back and saying "we changed our minds" is far different from refusing to provide a service in the first place.

gozunda

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least they're honest about it, but I don't see them winning if it came to a court case.

They accepted the contract, they accepted the money, and it was a one-time-only event. Giving the money back and saying "we changed our minds" is far different from refusing to provide a service in the first place.

Indeed. The comment was primarily highlighting the wonderful and quite crazy world of opinion and belief which is part and parcel of everyday Northern Ireland experience.

gozunda

blanch152 wrote: »

You talk a lot of sense a lot of the time, but on this one you are wrong.Imagine if someone had rocked up to the Ashers, a deeply conservative unionist business, and had said, please put a message on our cake that says "The IRA won and unionists suck", would you think it ok for them to refuse on the basis the message offended them?

Have you read any of the rest of the thread.?
There are dozens of the crazy group comparisons already.

To be fair you are wrong in your summary imo. That example does not stand - just the way the Nazi and anti Muslim and anti everything sentiments that have been suggested in this thread for cakes messages. Your message consists of elements of hate speach / incitement to hatred not contained in and not comparable to Mr Lees cake message.

And it is evident that the bakery in question is a commercial entity and by definition does not 'hold' by political beliefs by itself such as "conservative unionist" etc . We know the religion of the owners of this business but only after the fact. The original website gave no information on that or the families political orientation. Projection an argument doesn't make.

Lucy8080

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I could use a vague rule like that to defend racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and homophobia.

"Girl power!" No, don't agree.
"CONGRATS ON YOUR COMMUNION" NO, popery
Welcome Estonians! Don't hold with immigration
Support gay marriagw" oops been there

Would you allow Gareth Lee (if he owned a similar business) the right to refuse a message that went against his sensitivities?

If you would,that is the same equality under the law that you must extend to the McArthurs.

If you would not, can you please explain why you would with-hold this freedom from Gareth Lee and the McArthurs,equally.

Deusexmachina

A cake. The Supreme Court. For a cake.
Total nonsense.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I could use a vague rule like that to defend racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and homophobia.

"Girl power!" No, don't agree.
"CONGRATS ON YOUR COMMUNION" NO, popery
Welcome Estonians! Don't hold with immigration
Support gay marriagw" oops been there

Yeah, but that's kind of the point.

You're already accustomed to the idea that the right of free speech means that people are free to say lots of things that you find disagreeable or offensive. And (I'm guessing) you would defend that; it's as it should be.

But, once you accept that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, then people have a right to refuse to say things you find agreeable and important, and wish they would say. Compelled speech is just as much an infringement of the right to free speech as censored speech is.

Ashers could lawfully refuse to bake any or all of those cakes. Their refusal might be deplorable, but it wouldn't be illegal. Do you think it should be?

feargale

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I could use a vague rule like that to defend racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and homophobia.

"Girl power!" No, don't agree.
"CONGRATS ON YOUR COMMUNION" NO, popery
Welcome Estonians! Don't hold with immigration
Support gay marriagw" oops been there

You are forgetting the right to abstain from debate.

suicide_circus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but that's kind of the point.

You're already accustomed to the idea that the right of free speech means that people are free to say lots of things that you find disagreeable or offensive. And (I'm guessing) you would defend that; it's as it should be.

But, once you accept that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, then people have a right to refuse to say things you find agreeable and important, and wish they would say. Compelled speech is just as much an infringement of the right to free speech as censored speech is.

Ashers could lawfully refuse to bake any or all of those cakes. Their refusal might be deplorable, but it wouldn't be illegal. Do you think it should be?

you'll be shipped off to the gulag with that kind of reasoning

Wanderer2010

Im still shocked at the age of the cake owners and that they would still have such a conservative and outdated belief towards gays, I mean they are how old about 30-35? They would have exposure to gays in the media left right and centre- tv presenters are gay, singers are gay and this younger generation is the one fighting for gay marriage and trans-equality etc.

Contrast this with a young couple following the bible, and I have to say its absolutely bizarre for someone that young to hold such beliefs.

donkeykong5

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Im still shocked at the age of the cake owners and that they would still have such a conservative and outdated belief towards gays, I mean they are how old about 30-35? They would have exposure to gays in the media left right and centre- tv presenters are gay, singers are gay and this younger generation is the one fighting for gay marriage and trans-equality etc.

Contrast this with a young couple following the bible, and I have to say its absolutely bizarre for someone that young to hold such beliefs.

In this pcbrigade world. I have to say I admire them for sticking up for their own beliefs. I'm delighted they won the case as well. It's horrific the way the family and company have been targeted. Ordinary working people paying tax and insurance and living their lives

Wanderer2010

donkeykong5 wrote: »

In this pcbrigade world. I have to say I admire them for sticking up for their own beliefs. I'm delighted they won the case as well. It's horrific the way the family and company have been targeted. Ordinary working people paying tax and insurance and living their lives

I don't agree with any harassment against the family, im just very surprised that someone in their 30s this day and age would have such fixed views toward homosexuals, given how much progress has been made on the issue in the last decade or so. Normally older people in their 50s 60s and beyond can hold quite old fashioned beliefs towards gays but in my own circle of people, I cant name one single person in their 20s or 30s who still go to mass, never mind live by the bible. It really sticks out if you are young and hold that view. Makes me wonder how they could discuss modern tv shows, films, celebrities etc given how much gay culture has pervaded daily life.

Put it this way, if it was 1960s Ireland, I wouldn't be surprised but in 2018? Shocked.

donkeykong5

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

In this pcbrigade world. I have to say I admire them for sticking up for their own beliefs. I'm delighted they won the case as well. It's horrific the way the family and company have been targeted. Ordinary working people paying tax and insurance and living their lives

I don't agree with any harassment against the family, im just very surprised that someone in their 30s this day and age would have such fixed views toward homosexuals, given how much progress has been made on the issue in the last decade or so. Normally older people in their 50s 60s and beyond can hold quite old fashioned beliefs towards gays but in my own circle of people, I cant name one single person in their 20s or 30s who still go to mass, never mind live by the bible. It really sticks out if you are young and hold that view. Makes me wonder how they could discuss modern tv shows, films, celebrities etc given how much gay culture has pervaded daily life.

Put it this way, if it was 1960s Ireland, I wouldn't be surprised but in 2018? Shocked.

Even though especially in Ireland the pcbrigade rules. There are still some people who stick to their religion they were bought up with. Whitefriar church in Dublin has loads of people in the age group you mention in it constantly. Especially for some reason on Saturdays when in town shopping. Latest crap from pcbrigade is can't say pregnant woman anymore ......now has to be pregnant person. !. When I read this latest bull**** it warms me to know that the likes of ashers bakery are still around. Seems no mothers or fathers names to be on irish birth certs either. Has to be parent 1 and parent 2. From now on. Seems this moaning tiny minority in pc brigade protected LGBTWRSTUVWXYZ have taken over Ireland. Sad !