Gay Cake Controversy!

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.

[Deleted User] · 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)

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments