Gay Cake Controversy!

FTA69 · 08-07-2014 2:18pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What do you mean by partnership? No couple is forbidden from living together and if they want to formalise it from having a civil partnership. SSM is only available in a few places worldwide and there is much political debate about it. Branding everyone who thinks that what has held for hundreds of years, marriage being one man one woman should be retained, as homophic just ignores the reality of the political debate.

Marriage and civil partnership in the legal sense are two separate things. Why do you think that gay people should be prevented from getting married?

_Redzer_ · 08-07-2014 2:19pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

These gays must have way too much time on their hands to be whinging about a bloody cake.

Gateau(ver) it!!

Here you are again, Pad. The slightest wiff of anything gay and you're all over it

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:20pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. As I've already said.

It would also be wrong (as I've said) to decline to serve a person because they are gay.

There isn't much difference in theory or practice between discriminating against somebody because they are gay and discriminating against them because they are in a same sex marriage.

In each case your basic prejudice is rooted in their sexual orientation. And this is even more so in the religious context - the only reason they dislike gay marriage is because they dislike gays.

So I can't see the distinction to be honest. It's a very arbitrary and illogical objection.

And marital status is a protected class for the purposes of discrimination.

P_1 · 08-07-2014 2:22pm

floggg wrote: »

That is different. My objection, if I had any, would not be because of minority status or any of the other protected grounds.

It would be based on concerns about whether both parties were consenting. If either party was coerced, then it would likely be illegal and against that persons own interests. So I would object out of concern for the individual, not animus.

If however both parties freely wanted to enter an arranged marriage I would wish them luck, but tell them I'm **** at baking and suggest they ask my bf. he's much better at that sort of thing.

How is it different though? You would have a morally based objection to doing so, the same way that some folk would have a morally based objection towards SSM.

I'm not saying that having a moral objection towards SSM is right by any stretch of the imagination but unfortunately you can't project your own moral code onto others. Otherwise you'd just be as bad as the conservative dinosaurs.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:23pm

super_furry wrote: »

If a gay couple run a bakery would they be in the same position if they refused to make a cake specifically designed to support no changes to the current traditional marriage status? A 'keep marriage between a man and women' style cake.

They would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of religion. The Christian bakers also benefit from this legislation - it means a Muslim or atheist or gay shop keeper can't discriminate against them either.

In modern society we are all required to deal with people on an equal basis if we want to operate a business.

c_man · 08-07-2014 2:23pm

What exactly did they want the cake for??

08-07-2014 2:28pm

c_man wrote: »

What exactly did they want the cake for??

I'm assuming that they didn't really want the cake but wanted to target the bakery for the beliefs of it's owners and how they operate it.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 2:31pm

floggg wrote: »

In modern society we are all required to deal with people on an equal basis if we want to operate a business.

Businesses are not though. Bars, for example, are allowed to refuse custom, as are any business really.

It all depends on the reason for refusing custom. Some are legitimate, some are not.

jjdub1 · 08-07-2014 2:38pm

Bambi wrote: »

So the bible says its okay to make cakes for queens then?

Your move religious nordies

It actually says the opposite - context really is everything

c_man · 08-07-2014 2:38pm

If a gay couple run a bakery would they be in the same position if they refused to make a cake specifically designed to support no changes to the current traditional marriage status? A 'keep marriage between a man and women' style cake.

They would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of religion.

Well no... you're just assuming that anyone against gay marriage is religious.

Nodin · 08-07-2014 2:40pm

lazygal wrote: »

Now I know which bakery to avoid in that neck of the woods. WTF is a bakery run on Christian values anyway?

Yeast rises on the third day.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:42pm

P_1 wrote: »

How is it different though? You would have a morally based objection to doing so, the same way that some folk would have a morally based objection towards SSM.

I'm not saying that having a moral objection towards SSM is right by any stretch of the imagination but unfortunately you can't project your own moral code onto others. Otherwise you'd just be as bad as the conservative dinosaurs.

I would have thought the difference would be plainly obvious.

There is a big difference from discriminating against minorities based on who or what they are, as opposed to disagreeing with specific actions of individuals which are not specific to their specific minority group or culture, and which any be contrary to public policy or law.

So for example, I can be morally opposed to underage drinking or drinking to excess and object to people doing so. That's an objection to a specific action which is not specific to any participle group.

I can also be a massive racist and morally opposed to black people been given equal treatment. If I try to treat black people less favour all than white people, that's racial discrimination.

It's irrelevant that it's rooted in my moral beliefs. It's discrimination which is harmful to the public good and contrary to the laws of the land.

It's necessary in a lovers democracy to provide protections to minorities to protect against a tyranny of the majority.

I really don't think the difference needed to be explained.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:47pm

osarusan wrote: »

Businesses are not though. Bars, for example, are allowed to refuse custom, as are any business really.

It all depends on the reason for refusing custom. Some are legitimate, some are not.

Yes, they would be. They must apply the same criteria to all groups - men, women, gay, straight, atheist, believer.

If they have a policy against runners, that's fine as long as it applies to all. If it only applied to white men though that could be in breach of the equality legislation (think you might be allowed have different dress codes for the sexes though).

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 2:48pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sorry, your question was:

The way it's phrased didn't lend itself to a yes/no answer...hence my text.

In short, I would support (in principle) if they declined to make a Civil Partnership cake becasue they did not agree with civil partnerships.

But why do you think they do not agree with civil partnerhships?

Manach · 08-07-2014 2:48pm

Always ironic. The Progressives had decried historical state rules that oppressed those they've deemed now worthy of emulation. Now they gladly embrace the same power of the state both to reduce liberal freedom of business and religion.
The same groups that have pushed so hard to topple the old social rules have enacted a whole series of others backed by the Equality authority to ensure that right-think prevails.

dissed doc · 08-07-2014 2:50pm

lazygal wrote: »

Now I know which bakery to avoid in that neck of the woods. WTF is a bakery run on Christian values anyway?

Probably similar to a butcher run on strictIslamic or Jewish values. If you are being refused pork schnitzel there you could find another butcher. Not every muslim, jew or christian adheres equally to every code of their religions but we respect the muslims and jewish people's right tol be free from religious persecution, the same should apply to christians who practice more strict values.

I once went into a cafe that only served vegetarian food, and rather than make a complaint to the Equality Commission I went elsewhere for my club sandwich. Unfortunately that level of tolerance doesn't exist in Ireland and the "liberal" parts of the US, where christian beliefs are persecuted while jewish or muslim beliefs are accepted.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 2:50pm

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The bakery were not being asked to support gay marriage. They were employed to make a cake...nothing more. Their involvement in making the cake would almost certainly never have become public knowledge had they just made it.

Saying that, the bakery will win the case. Otherwise people will just start placing orders with other religious run companies for services or goods which are not in line with that religion, get refused and then claim discrimination. It'll become a money-making racket.

I'm not sure the bakery will win the case

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 2:51pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But why do you think they do not agree with civil partnerhships?

I have no idea. It's a legal contract open to most people, so I don't know.

Arthur Beesley · 08-07-2014 2:52pm

Not a big fan of cake myself, prefer buns.

kalmanon2 · 08-07-2014 2:52pm

Once you accept the money, you have legally entered into a contract to provide services, whereas if you refuse service, you are under no obligation

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:52pm

Manach wrote: »

Always ironic. The Progressives had decried historical state rules that oppressed those they've deemed now worthy of emulation. Now they gladly embrace the same power of the state both to reduce liberal freedom of business and religion.
The same groups that have pushed so hard to topple the old social rules have enacted a whole series of others backed by the Equality authority to ensure that right-think prevails.

You are watching too much Fox News.

Protection against discrimination is very much a liberal cause and always has been.

And equality legislation doesn't reduce freedom of religion - it expressly protects it. What it does do however is say that your own personal prejudices must stay within the private realm, be they against gays or religion, and that if you wish to engage in the public realm you must offer your goods and services on equal terms.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 2:54pm

osarusan wrote: »

Businesses are not though. Bars, for example, are allowed to refuse custom, as are any business really.

It all depends on the reason for refusing custom. Some are legitimate, some are not.

Bars are not allowed to refuse custom to any of the 9 groups under the equality legislation

dxhound2005 · 08-07-2014 2:54pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm not sure the bakery will win the case

There isn't a case at present. They are being invited by the Equality Commission to respond to the complaint and if they give no response they could then be subject to legal action. It would be a bizzare outcome though if the shop was found guilty of discrimination when the parliament of their country has outlawed they very thing to which they objected.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 2:54pm

kalmanon2 wrote: »

Once you accept the money, you have legally entered into a contract to provide services, whereas if you refuse service, you are under no obligation

We're down to law of contract now - not equality.

I'm sure there's a basis in law for a job going up the hierarchy of a business, being refused (on whatever grounds) and a refund given.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:56pm

dissed doc wrote: »

Probably similar to a butcher run on strictIslamic or Jewish values. If you are being refused pork schnitzel there you could find another butcher. Not every muslim, jew or christian adheres equally to every code of their religions but we respect the muslims and jewish people's right tol be free from religious persecution, the same should apply to christians who practice more strict values.

I once went into a cafe that only served vegetarian food, and rather than make a complaint to the Equality Commission I went elsewhere for my club sandwich. Unfortunately that level of tolerance doesn't exist in Ireland and the "liberal" parts of the US, where christian beliefs are persecuted while jewish or muslim beliefs are accepted.

You don't understand the legislation you are criticising.

Jewish butchers are subject to the legislation in question but it wouldn't require the Jewish Butcher to sell pork. It would require a Jewish butcher to sell kosher meats to Christians, Muslims, gays and women etc.

So no, it's not similar.

Anybody giving the Jewish butcher selling pork analogy is incorrect and should go have a look around the equality authority's websites as well as the legislation.

old hippy · 08-07-2014 2:56pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Here you are again, Pad. The slightest wiff of anything gay and you're all over it

he's the icing on the cake, dontcha know?

Manach wrote: »

Always ironic. The Progressives had decried historical state rules that oppressed those they've deemed now worthy of emulation. Now they gladly embrace the same power of the state both to reduce liberal freedom of business and religion.
The same groups that have pushed so hard to topple the old social rules have enacted a whole series of others backed by the Equality authority to ensure that right-think prevails.

To ensure that equality prevails and bigotry & discrimination fails. Big difference there, Manach my man.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 2:56pm

floggg wrote: »

If they have a policy against runners, that's fine as long as it applies to all.

And if the shop had a policy against any political messages on cakes, that would be ok, as long as it applies to all?

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 2:56pm

floggg wrote: »

And equality legislation doesn't reduce freedom of religion - it expressly protects it. What it does do however is say that your own personal prejudices must stay within the private realm, be they against gays or religion, and that if you wish to engage in the public realm you must offer your goods and services on equal terms.

I have no doubt that the bakery would have refused this particular job whether it came from a straight or gay person. Entirely equal treatment, they just don't want to make your political cake.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 2:58pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Bars are not allowed to refuse custom to any of the 9 groups under the equality legislation

That's not really relevant to what I said.

Sure, there is equality legislation, but bars are still allowed refuse custom to those not covered by that legislation.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:59pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We're down to law of contract now - not equality.

I'm sure there's a basis in law for a job going up the hierarchy of a business, being refused (on whatever grounds) and a refund given.

Not unless you have set same out in terms and conditions provided prior to entering into a contract. I doubt the baker had them.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 3:00pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The business should have the right to refuse to make any order that it wanted. BUT NOT because the customer happens to be gay.

An alternative example might be a muslim person wanting to have a cake decorated in a way that extolled the virtue of covering up women from head to toe.

A bakery should have the right to refuse it, but NOT becasue the client is muslim.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sorry, your question was:

The way it's phrased didn't lend itself to a yes/no answer...hence my text.

In short, I would support (in principle) if they declined to make a Civil Partnership cake becasue they did not agree with civil partnerships.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But why do you think they do not agree with civil partnerhships?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I have no idea. It's a legal contract open to most people, so I don't know.

Your logic doesn't add up. Its obvious they dont like civil partnerships BECAUSE there are gay people involved so therefore how can you say on the one hand they shouldnt be able to refuse gay people but on the other they should be able to refuse civil partnerships. Your reasoning is completely inconsistent.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 3:01pm

floggg wrote: »

Not unless you have set same out in terms and conditions provided prior to entering into a contract. I doubt the baker had them.

So the Equality Authority are involved in order to sort out this minor contractual dispute. Excellent use of resources.

08-07-2014 3:01pm

Having seen some of the comments in this thread, I think that this sketch fits in perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DahkwAsth-o

floggg · 08-07-2014 3:01pm

osarusan wrote: »

And if the shop had a policy against any political messages on cakes, that would be ok, as long as it applies to all?

I would think so (though I don't agree that LGBT rights is properly termed a "political issue).

I already said I'm not sure if this specific case is something the equality authorities should be getting involved in - though if it was a wedding/CP cake that would be a different matter.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 3:03pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your logic doesn't add up. Its obvious they dont like civil partnerships BECAUSE there are gay people involved so therefore how can you say on the one hand they shouldnt be able to refuse gay people but on the other they should be able to refuse civil partnerships. Your reasoning is completely inconsistent.

No it's not.

They should not be allowed to say: "I'm not serving you, you're gay!"

They should be allowed to say: "Sorry, we don't do civil partnership cakes. We don't agree with them" to anyone.

Medusa22 · 08-07-2014 3:03pm

floggg wrote: »

I would think so (though I don't agree that LGBT rights is properly termed a "political issue).

My thoughts on this exactly. I don't believe that LGBT rights can be termed a politicial issue or ''agenda''.

floggg · 08-07-2014 3:04pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So the Equality Authority are involved in order to sort out this minor contractual dispute. Excellent use of resources.

No. You asked a contractual question and I answered. I never mentions the equality tribunal in that post.

The equality authority has nothing to do with contract issues and equality legislation applies irregardless of contractual terms and both before and after the contract has been entered into.

floggg · 08-07-2014 3:04pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not.

They should not be allowed to say: "I'm not serving you, you're gay!"

They should be allowed to say: "Sorry, we don't do civil partnership cakes. We don't agree with them" to anyone.

"We don't offer jobs to women. We don't agree with women working."

osarusan · 08-07-2014 3:05pm

floggg wrote: »

I would think so (though I don't agree that LGBT rights is properly termed a "political issue).

I already said I'm not sure if this specific case is something the equality authorities should be getting involved in - though if it was a wedding/CP cake that would be a different matter.

I agree with some of what you say, but I disagree with your statement that business must do business with everybody equally. There are many examples of businesses having the right not to do this.

In terms of this particular story, my take on it is that some people went to this particular shop and asked for this particular cake in order to provoke the kind of response they got. I don't have much sympathy for them.

Having said that, the bakery could have given a few different, non-contentious reasons for not making the cake, but they seemds happy to get involved too.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 3:06pm

floggg wrote: »

No. You asked a contractual question and I answered. I never mentions the equality tribunal in that post.

The equality authority has nothing to do with contract issues and equality legislation applies irregardless of contractual terms and both before and after the contract has been entered into.

That was a remark to the world in general floggg, not just to you. Sorry.

(I didn't ask any question)

keano_afc · 08-07-2014 3:07pm

I dont think there's anything to see here to be honest. They are perfectly entitled to turn business away if they see fit.

What is interesting is the tactical decision of the consumer to specifically choose that bakery for their cake.

old hippy · 08-07-2014 3:07pm

keano_afc wrote: »

I dont think there's anything to see here to be honest. They are perfectly entitled to turn business away if they see fit.

What is interesting is the tactical decision of the consumer to specifically choose that bakery for their cake.

Perhaps they should go abroad?

bodice ripper · 08-07-2014 3:07pm

Hello fellow members of the LGBT-thread swat team.

The fairly clear baiting of a business to make a political point is a dick move. As is refusing to make a cake on ideological grounds. The people involved deserve each other, and ironically they are dicks all round.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 3:09pm

floggg wrote: »

"We don't offer jobs to women. We don't agree with women working."

Yeah, that would be illegal.

I'm not proposing withholding services to anyone based on who/what they are. I'm saying that a business should be able to withhold services for certain jobs they don't agree with.

I Heart Internet · 08-07-2014 3:11pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Hello fellow members of the LGBT-thread swat team.

The fairly clear baiting of a business to make a political point is a dick move. As is refusing to make a cake on ideological grounds. The people involved deserve each other, and ironically they are dicks all round.

Bigger dicks are the people threatening legal action on a business as a ploy to get sympathy for their cause and trying to damage the livelihoods of people who disagree with them, to be fair.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 3:12pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not.

They should not be allowed to say: "I'm not serving you, you're gay!"

They should be allowed to say: "Sorry, we don't do civil partnership cakes. We don't agree with them" to anyone.

Thats effectively the same thing :cool:

feargale · 08-07-2014 3:14pm

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Not a big fan of cake myself, prefer buns.

Fairy cakes?

old hippy · 08-07-2014 3:15pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Bigger dicks are the people threatening legal action on a business as a ploy to get sympathy for their cause and trying to damage the livelihoods of people who disagree with them, to be fair.

Nah. They should highlight every instance, every single example of intolerance & those seeking to deny the basic rights of people getting married. Which is what every single person who is opposed to SSM is doing. Directly or indirectly.

keano_afc · 08-07-2014 3:15pm

old hippy wrote: »

Perhaps they should go abroad?

Or you know, a shop that would make the cake without having to conflict with their beliefs. But there's no publicity in that is there?

dxhound2005 · 08-07-2014 3:16pm

old hippy wrote: »

Nah. They should highlight every instance, every single example of intolerance & those seeking to deny the basic rights of people getting married. Which is what every single person who is opposed to SSM is doing. Directly or indirectly.

Is it OK for married people then?

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments