Implications of the Irish gay cake ruling

but the reasons they refused it are obviously from a discriminatory background
if i refused to write "support black rights" or something similar i would quite clearly be in the wrong. but refusing to write support same sex marriage is still acceptable?

Was being gay in Ireland allowed at the time? I think it was quite close to them allowing gay marriage iirc so I think leway should be given to catch up with legislation

• The case is in NI, not Ireland - ie, it's in the UK.

• Gay marriage being legalised is not the same as legalising homosexuality.

• There is still no same sex marriage in NI, that was the point of the cake. We do have civil partnerships, homosexuality is legal, and it's illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.

FFS.

I think it’s a good ruling too. Imagine if cake-makers, t-shirt printers, website designers, event planners and the like were forced to design, create, plan or even host things that they found morally unacceptable. Swastika cakes, National Front website, celebrate-women-leaving-Labour parties...

It IS discriminatory, what if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple ? No difference at all

They didn't refuse to make a cake for a gay couple; they refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting same sex marriage.

A good ruling.

A shame it takes "religion" to win the case though instead of individual opinion. I think they were swayed by the church power over there

It was a set up. I’m glad they won.

The problem was not the couple - it was the slogan they wanted to force the religious bakers to write.

Yes, I think it was likely a set up, tbh. As I understand it the Asher's bakery was known to be run by Evangelical Christians.

Was being gay in Ireland allowed at the time?

I agree with the ruling FWIW. I also believe they may have been set up to refuse it. I might be wrong though.

while i agree with free speech for actual debatable things, in this case its just meant they can and are supported to holding a belief that is outraged,damaging and hateful

Once, gay people not being permitted to marry was a ubiquitous view. Gay marriage was not a debatable thing. If we lived in a country which only allowed discussion of mainstream views gay marriage would never have happened.

Peter Tatchell was very good on r4 at lunchtime about this. He totally agrees with the ruling.

As I was listening I wondered how I would feel if the law forces me to make a cake saying ‘trans women are women’. Or similar.

I'm gay and before this whole trans "repeat after us" nightmare I would have been on the side of the gay couple. However, I feel I've grown more politically sophisticated.

This distinction between ones obligation to treat people equally, and an obligation to support something you don't support, is an important one.

It would be totally different if they refused to serve gay people, but that's not what happened. They opposed the message not the people.

Nuance eh, a tricky beast.

@GreyGardens88 They didn't refuse to make the cake though. They just refused the wording. They even said they would do the cake and they could then do whatever wording themselves.

I'm pleased with this ruling.

They offered to make the entire cake and decorate it, and supply a free tube of writing icing. It was the slogan, not the people.

Belief vrs buisness ffs

Was being gay in Ireland allowed at the time? I think it was quite close to them allowing gay marriage iirc so I think leway should be given to catch up with legislation

Saying that I think people in shops should be allowed to say no I mean there is such a thing as respect for the other persons views you have to weigh it up belief bed business

Ok, thanks for explaining that the cake can contain a message because I was wondering why a b&b cannot turn a way a gay couple but the bakers don't have to make a gay cake. I get it now.

It IS discriminatory, what if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple ? No difference at all

It wasn't that they refused to make the cake for the couple (they had served the couple previously apparently) it was that they refused to put the message 'support gay marriage' on the cake.

GreyGardens88
They didn't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, they refused to make the cake because of the pro gay marriage slogan, they would have made a cake without the slogan. Whilst I don't agree with their views I can see the distinction and I agree with the ruling.

@greygardens88 I think the ruling would be the same for an interracial couple- the issue wasn’t that they were gay it’s what they wanted on the cake- as far as I know anyway

The ruling has made very clear it's not about allowing people to be discriminated against based on who they are.

It is simply making clear that you cannot be compelled to promote something you do not agree with or believe in. That's it. It's nothing to do with refusing service based on someone's identity.

GreyGardens they didn't refuse to bake the couple a cake. They would have baked a cake without the message on, or another message. They refused to bake a cake that expressed a message they did not agree with.

GG88
That's the key point - they were quite prepared to sell them a cake, just not with that slogan on it. Hence the win in the Supreme Court.

If they'd refused to sell them any cake at all they'd have been (rightly) hammered for it but that's not what this case was about. Just ask Peter Tatchell.

"If I made cakes I would like the freedom to reject designs that are racist, pro Tory, anti-choice etc. I wouldn't expect an ethically vegan cakemaker to make a design that was pro meat slaughter. Etc etc etc."

If you refused those designs, that wouldn't be discriminatory against a protected minority though..

out dated not outraged

while i agree with free speech for actual debatable things, in this case its just meant they can and are supported to holding a belief that is outraged,damaging and hateful .