Gay Cake Controversy!

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 03:22PM

gozunda wrote: »

I took the quote from their written statement but either way it does not change that the Bakery declined service on the basis of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

The order was made a person who was representing a specific group. By refusing that person they risk being found guilty of discrimination.

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.

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.

_Redzer_ · 09-07-2014 03:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They didn't discriminate against anyone. They mere refused to bake something with a message that they not agree with. They would have refused if a straight person request the cake in question.

Is it discrimination if a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message against the support of gay marriage?

So if I owned a bakery it would be perfectly understandable to tell anyone to piss off if they asked for a christening, communion or confirmation cake because I don't believe in the message? It'd still be retarded beyond belief. But then again, I'd bake it because what's the harm in it? It's the religious who are always the problem with anything they don't like and they'll always kick up a storm and refuse to be tolerant

kunst nugget · 09-07-2014 03:23PM

floggg wrote: »

Regardless of whether they had a right to refuse, there no fundamental difference in the nature of the service provided where the provide a custom cake decorated with a pro-LGBT message and a custom cake decorated with a one direction theme.

In each case the service is cake making and decoration.

So what they were asked to do is something they do as a regular part of their business - baking a cake and sticking icing, cream and fondant on it in a pattern. The only difference here is that they disliked the particular way they were asked to stick the icing, fondant and cream on the cake.

This argument that they were asked to do something out of the ordinary is illogical and absurd. A cake is a cake no matter what you write on it.

But if they refuse to make a penis cake, are they discriminating anyone?

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 03:26PM

old hippy wrote: »

They refused on the flimsy grounds of belief system. The wider message is to deny gay people the right to marital equality.

Your question has been answered several times; it's folly & a distraction and has no bearing on the topic.

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.

floggg · 09-07-2014 03:26PM

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.

Sorry but it would be absurd to think that a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only does not contain an inherent judgment on homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

Even ignoring all the supposed biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it contains an implicit judgment that gay relationships are lesser.

floggg · 09-07-2014 03:27PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

But if they refuse to make a penis cake, are they discriminating anyone?

I can't see how it would fit within any of the 9 protected grounds myself so I will say no.

gozunda · 09-07-2014 03:28PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

You're strawmanning there. It's not a bakery that regularly makes cakes advocating SSM and then refused to sell one to a gay person. Part of the business is to create one off cakes and they've said they've already refused to create cakes which they didn't believe suited the ethos of the bakery.

No straw manning however there has been a fair bit of splitting straws as in the example given demanding something that a shop doesn't sell as in the example of the halal shop and a person looking for non halal food.

They may refused something pornographic but those refusals did not contravene rights under equality legislation. Refusing to serve a customised cake in a customised cake shop to a person representing a particular sexual orientation on the basis that it does not agree with the owners religious views does apparently. 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...

samantha fortune · 09-07-2014 03:28PM

Portal CAKE Song – Still Alive

This was a triumph.
I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there’s no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
And the Science gets done.
And you make a neat gun.
For the people who are still alive.
I’m not even angry.
I’m being so sincere right now.
Even though you broke my heart.
And killed me.
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we’re out of beta.
We’re releasing on time.
So I’m GLaD. I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are still alive.
Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay inside.
Maybe you’ll find someone else to help you.
Maybe Black Mesa
THAT WAS A JOKE.
HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
Anyway, this cake is great.
It’s so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking
when there’s Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I’m not you.
I’ve experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.
And believe me I am still alive.
I’m doing Science and I’m still alive.
I feel FANTASTIC and I’m still alive.
While you’re dying I’ll be still alive.
And when you’re dead I will be still alive.
STILL ALIVE
STILL ALIVE

gozunda · 09-07-2014 03:30PM

floggg wrote: »

I can't see how it would fit within any of the 9 protected grounds myself so I will say no.

Agreed - this does not fall under Equality Legislation

09-07-2014 03:30PM

old hippy wrote: »

They refused on the flimsy grounds of belief system. The wider message is to deny gay people the right to marital equality.

Your question has been answered several times; it's folly & a distraction and has no bearing on the topic.

They are entitled to refuse to bake something with a message they do not agree with. They have stated that in the past they refused to bake a cake with pornographic imagery on it.

And why is that question a folly or misdirection? If such a situation occurred then would it be considered discrimination or would the gay baker be championed for standing up for what he believes in?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So if I owned a bakery it would be perfectly understandable to tell anyone to piss off if they asked for a christening, communion or confirmation cake because I don't believe in the message? It'd still be retarded beyond belief. But then again, I'd bake it because what's the harm in it? It's the religious who are always the problem with anything they don't like and they'll always kick up a storm and refuse to be tolerant

You'd be perfectly entitled to refuse to bake a cake that contained a message that you didn't agree with. it may not make business sense but you can run your own business as you see fit.

Awkward Badger · 09-07-2014 03:37PM

This is going in circles from they are entitled to no they're not, its discrimination, against who, they not entitled, yes they are, its discrimination, no its not. Its going nowhere.

My view is that it wasn't discrimination because I don't see how the sexuality of the customer had any bearing on the decision not to make the cake because the issue was what was on the cake not the sexuality of the customer.

I'd imagine the equality commission will be regretting sending that letter because its assertion that the baker refused the order based on the sexuality of the customer is completely wrong and without foundation.

It won't go to court because there has been no breach of the law. And I hope the bakery takes action against the equality commission for wrongly attempting to deny them their rights and in the process adding fuel to the fire that will have no doubt damaged the bakeries business.

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

gozunda · 09-07-2014 03:38PM

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its a political campaign. Its a campaign to influence the outcome of a public vote to change the laws in relation to same

A campaign and a vote to change the laws is related to the governance of this country. Just because you belief the issue is related to human rights doesn't mean its not still a political campaign.

Public not 'political'

Equality is a civil rights issue. It may be adopted by a political party but in its own right it remains a civil rights issue.

Another example If it gets written up in a newspaper does it become an editorial matter? - no.

Civil rights are held by individuals. Governments may use civil rights issues to bandwagon and when in power they are obliged to legislate as in the will of the people however that legislation is of the country or state for the people and not any one political party.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 03:40PM

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

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

Cushie Butterfield · 09-07-2014 03:42PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

Ashers didn't come out

Maybe it's time they did

No doubt they have no problem baking a Simpsons Cake - there have been many controversial episodes of that which would have been contrary to their religion. I wonder have they refused to bake one for a child's birthday? I doubt it. Would a child be refused a birthday cake if they had stolen biscuits from the cupboard in the past? After all, stealing is against Ashers religious beliefs also, or is it ok?

What about Superman cakes? Or any other cakes that depict a higher force or being? Surely they would also be contrary to their religious beliefs.

I wonder do they veto all prospective clients to ensure that they haven't in the past been involved in any activities that contravene the 'thou shalt not kill' religious rule, or 'tho shalt not steal' religious rule or the 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife' religious rule.

If they did they would have much time to bake any cakes at all, never mind decorate them.

darkpagandeath · 09-07-2014 03:46PM

Whats cake and religion got to do with each other ?

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 03:48PM

floggg wrote: »

Sorry but it would be absurd to think that a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only does not contain an inherent judgment on homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

Even ignoring all the supposed biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it contains an implicit judgment that gay relationships are lesser.

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.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 03:49PM

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I wonder do they veto all prospective clients to ensure that they haven't in the past been involved in any activities that contravene the 'thou shalt not kill' religious rule, or 'tho shalt not steal' religious rule or the 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife' religious rule.

If they did they would have much time to bake any cakes at all, never mind decorate them.

They have, apparently, refused other order in the past that they did not wish to be involved with (pornographic images, swearing).

It may come as a shock to you, but people have the right determine for themselves what they approve of or don't. They don't even have to be consistent about it.

In this case, the bakery didn't fancy being party to a SSM campaign.

FunLover18 · 09-07-2014 03:50PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Whats cake and religion got to do with each other ?

Jesus took cake, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my birthday."

gozunda · 09-07-2014 03:55PM

Awkward Badger wrote: »

....

My view is that it wasn't discrimination because I don't see how the sexuality of the customer had any bearing on the decision not to make the cake because the issue was what was on the cake not the sexuality of the customer.

I'd imagine the equality commission will be regretting sending that letter because its assertion that the baker refused the order based on the sexuality of the customer is completely wrong and without foundation.

It won't go to court because there has been no breach of the law. And I hope the bakery takes action against the equality commission for wrongly attempting to deny them their rights and in the process adding fuel to the fire that will have no doubt damaged the bakeries business.

Anyway as I said this is going in circles so I'm gonna bail out before I'm sick to my teeth of the word cake.

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.

Cushie Butterfield · 09-07-2014 03:57PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It may come as a shock to you, but people have the right determine for themselves what they approve of or don't. They don't even have to be consistent about it.

I didn't say I was shocked - the only thing that surprises me is the fact that a business comes out with ridiculous excuses such as they did to turn down income. Let's hope that they veto all their suppliers to ensure that none of their staff are in a same sex relationship. If not they are the ones who may be shocked.

floggg · 09-07-2014 04:04PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:06PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:20PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:22PM

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

gozunda · 09-07-2014 04:24PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:25PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:38PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:40PM

gozunda · 09-07-2014 04:42PM

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 · 09-07-2014 04:43PM

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.

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments