Gay Cake Controversy!

I was thinking previously that it's a bit odd if NI currently deems same-sex marriage illegal then...etc. But actually, no, it doesn't matter, so long as the message isn't discriminatory under current law. For instance, there would be no issue in the Republic getting a cake that said "Ban fox-hunting!" or "Legalise weed!", both of which would be on the wrong side of the law insofar as ideals go, BUT not illegal to talk about (or even get cakes about if that floats your boat). And I don't think any bakery would be able to argue with any level of conviction that they cannot write this sugary message because either it's illegal or it goes against their sincerely held beliefs.

If you're a business providing a service, first off, it's stupid to refuse customers just because you don't like the message. Now, if it was -advocating- an illegal act, there's a bit more room to play with there, although that's certainly not the direction the defendants in this court case went in.

Regarding some of the other examples, the one that has had me thinking the most (most of them were, frankly, pretty dumb) was the "could you get a Muslim baker to put a picture of Mohammad on a cake?" The answer there is probably not black and white, but rather what possible reason could anyone have to get a picture of Mohammad on a cake? He's a very specific Islamic figure with little to no relevance to the rest of the world. I cannot see, off the top of my head, a single sane reason for wanting it other than purely to have a go at the Muslim baker, which would indeed be discriminating against him/her on religious grounds (very nastily too, to try to get them into trouble with their religion or the law). Basically, the "don't be a dick" rule applies here. I'm pretty sure no-one is expected to place themselves in potential danger for the sake of a customer being a dick either, there are personal safety clauses and the Muslim baker could point to Charlie Hebdo or the Danish cartoonist.

Aha, so the Muslim would be protected due to his religion, but the Christians aren't, the world is a cruel and unfair place! Well, no, actually. Yes, gay marriage is held as being wrong according to Catholics (based on very little, but that's beside the point, they hold this belief sincerely), but it actually does affect a much wider section of the population than just their own people and that's where the issue arises. Is one person's freedom of person more important than another's freedom to impose their religious views through their own business? The courts say no, it isn't. If you are providing a service within certain defined parameters to the general public, you are expected to go through with that. You can't define who you do business with based on their sexual orientation (or any of the other eight protected statuses) and it was concluded that this falls under that based on the sole reason for refusal being the word "gay" on the cake. Religion is also one of those areas, and if a parent wanted to get a cake decorated by an atheist baker with "First Holy Communion" on it, the atheist baker would also not have the right to discriminate against them by cancelling the order because they'd have write "First Holy Communion" and get some of that nasty religion on them.

HOWEVER, I am not fully in sympathy with the complainant either, as he went deliberately (or so it seems) to the uber-Christian job bakery to order a cake that he probably knew would get their knickers in a twist, which seems a bit dickish in itself. He's within his rights, although in the US, there's a party of religious wingnuts that want to be able to claim tax support AND discriminate against members of the public who pay into those taxes based on their religion. And they can sod right off. Whatever arguments one might be able to make about a private enterprise being able to refuse to carry out work they don't want to do whatever the reason, it absolutely doesn't apply to the public sector. That goes double for that Kimberly Whatsit woman that was refusing to give out marriage licences because of her religious urge to be a dick.

It's a more complicated case than it looks from the word "cake". I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to break it down into a Twitter-outrage 140-character soundbite. Despite my last paragraph which included the word "dick" a lot.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Firstly, no-one would have known anything about any association if they had iced the cake.

Secondly, they are now associated with nothing but a rather bigoted Protestantism, which will do them more harm than showing toleration for Gays would have.

Ok, bigoted Protestantism and a hot wife.

you have no notion that they are bigoted.

this is something that bugs me when it comes to so called tolerance etc...as thought up by the left.

Yes we should tolerate others consensual behaviour and what they do with themselves but ffs you can't make people like it.

not liking something or not approving of behaviour doesn't make you bigot.

they didn't want to make a cake , they never said they wouldn't serve a gay person. a huge difference.