To ask you what you think about the Christian bakery?

[Summerbreezer]

Can't see a thread about this on here - apologies if there is one already.

For those who haven't read the story, a bakery in Northern Ireland has refused to bake a cake for a gay person. They wanted Bert and Ernie on the top of the cake with the words "Queerspace".

BBC Link here:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

I am completely torn here. On one hand, I am a big believer in "trendy" rights not trumping "untrendy" ones. The rights of Christians are just as important as the rights of gay people.

I am also a big believer in the freedom of private business to contract with whoever they wished.

But then, if this bakery had refused to serve a black person on the grounds of race, I would feel deeply uncomfortable about it.

So Mumsnet, tell me what you think!

Iirc political affiliation is a protected characteristic and would be classed as discrimination

Phaedra several people have suggested that the bakery would have refused to make the cake if it had been requested by a heterosexual person. Indeed, it was made for a local councillor while he was Mayor of Bangor, so I would be surprised if he had actually ordered the cake himself.
would you still consider that discrimination?

it should be up to a business which commissions they take, is not the same as saying it should be up to a business who they do business with.

everyone on here would be abhorred by a No blacks, No Irish etc sign . It's not the same.

I think this is something and nothing. Of course the cake makers can refuse to ice a slogan that they 'disagree' with.
I would not make a cake that said 'death to the infidels' 'I hate niggers' 'fat people are greedy fuckers' 'Jews are the root of all evil' 'anal sex rules' or any other ridiculous slogan.

There are loads of cake makers these days.
It should be a criminal offence (and probably is?) to not SERVE a gay person but surely it's a choice about what you ICE ON A BLOODY CAKE.

It's slightly disconcerting how many people can't distinguish between a political opinion and a protected characteristic.

Also, concerned for those who equate gay people extending personal civil rights and the BNP. What's up with that?

Iirc political affiliation is a protected characteristic and would be classed as discrimination

It isn't.

it should be up to a business which commissions they take, is not the same as saying it should be up to a business who they do business with

It's exactly the same thing. My example of putting a sign up at least would be honest about their prejudice.

I'm not convinced that sign about the Blacks, Irish, etc was that common or it even existed but I wasn't alive and that belongs in another era and I don't think it is relevant.

The cake is like a commission with the wording. were they happy to write the mens' names and was it the 'Queerspace' that caused a problem? At least he was honest and prepared to put his head above the pulpit so to speak.

As someone said earlier these laws are very recent and christianity has been around for 2000 odd years'.

interesting Phaedra that you chose to address one of my points and not the other . so I'll ask again: would it constitute discrimination if they refused to bake this cake for a heterosexual person?

What I cannot understand is, why do you have to agree with the messages or slogans which go in the products you sell? If I was the owner of an engravers business, and I only agreed to engrave slogans I supported... would I refuse to engrave messages about political parties I did not vote for? Well no, I wouldn't, because writing a message for a business has nothing to do with endorsing that message. Equally, I would expect a bakery which sells cakes with messages on them not to expect only to print messages they agree with or endorse. So this bakery would refuse to make a cake with the message "I love Cinderella!" because they actually thought Snow White was better? Thought not!

Comparing a message about gay marriage with a racist or pornographic message is actually offensive. Do you guys really equate a message breaking the law with one supporting marriage among two people in love? Really??

Trendy?? Really? Being gay isn't a trend. On those grounds, YABU.

aurynne surely its easy to see why the bakery would not want to print a slogan that they disagree with in this instance? If Ashers directors are Christians who believe that gay marriage is wrong, it would be ridiculously hypocritical of them to accept money in order to endorse a message that they disagree with. Tbh they're in a no win situation. They accept the commission, they're hypocrites, and when word gets around that they did it, they risk having the congregations of the major churches here boycotting them, and its a threat to their business, and to the jobs of those they employ. On the other hand, they refuse the commission, they face a court case, and people calling them hypocrites for not showing a Christian attitude towards others, and now they have people boycotting them because they believe them to be bigots.

And there, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons why businesses find it hard to thrive in Northern Ireland.

Phaedra either you are misreading or being deliberately obtuse.
No has mentioned forcing someone to work for the BNP. I didn't say that in my post either. I said made to provide a service. There is a difference between being an employee and choosing to accept a commission/contract from a potential client.

They did not refuse to serve a customer. They refused to accept a commission for an item for a political campaign. Businesses make decisions all the time about which commissions they will accept.

So, I would appreciate if instead of misrepresenting what I said, that you answered my question which is how do you safeguard my right to refuse to work on anti-feminist campaigns whilst forcing the bakery to complete a commission for a political campaign they do not support?

aurynne surely its easy to see why the bakery would not want to print a slogan that they disagree with in this instance? If Ashers directors are Christians who believe that gay marriage is wrong, it would be ridiculously hypocritical of them to accept money in order to endorse a message that they disagree with. Tbh they're in a no win situation. They accept the commission, they're hypocrites, and when word gets around that they did it, they risk having the congregations of the major churches here boycotting them, and its a threat to their business, and to the jobs of those they employ. On the other hand, they refuse the commission, they face a court case, and people calling them hypocrites for not showing a Christian attitude towards others, and now they have people boycotting them because they believe them to be bigots.

And there, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons why businesses find it hard to thrive in Northern Ireland.

Re: no blacks/Irish signs. This would be a clear example of refusing to provide your ordinary business services to someone, based only on their race or nationality (protected characteristics). Such discrimination and therefore such signs are rightly illegal.

These bakers did not, as far as I can see, refuse ordinary service to a person based on a protected characteristic. They refused a private service based on their unwillingness to produce the item required, because it contradicts their personal beliefs to produce such an item. I am genuinely struggling to see why people can't see the difference.

'Protected characteristics' are simply those that are written into law as such at this time (and I certainly disagree that at least one of those characteristics should be considered 'protected'). Any such list can change as society progresses and refines what it feels should be included. Some 15 years ago, I was part of the group who drafted my SU equal opps policy, and it had about fifty 'protected characteristics' on it.

Dismissing analogous arguments that consider the production of BNP merchandise or pro-choice cakes as incomparable is a complete non-sequiteur in my opinion. It also seems a bit of a convenient rebuttal. It must be clear (surely?) that the principle is exactly the same; therefore, batting away discussion of this central principle by referring to the actual wording of the current law is refusal to engage. I suspect this is because considering those examples means that you might have to consider whether you have to allow these bakers the right to refuse this commission no matter how unpalatable you find their position.

diddle I don't know and that may be one for the courts to decide. I was addressing your point that they get out of because it's a commission.

I mentioned house painters in an earlier post. I think that if the heterosexual assistant of a gay couple tried to organise the work but the painters refused to take on the commission solely because her employers were gay they would be guilty of discrimination. They are refusing the service to the owners of the house, not the assistant.

If she was ordering their wedding cake, I think the same would apply.

I don't think the comparison between this and shops refusing entry to people based on their ethnicity are relevant. They didn't ban them from their shops and they would have sold them a different cake.

I don't equate the message on this cake with racism or pornography, I equate it with other political messages in which people are allowed to have different opinions about.

I support gay marriage, but I also support political freedom and democracy and am uncomfortable with the idea that a person or business should be preventing from deciding not to support a law before it is passed.

It's an interesting debate and it's given me lots to think about.

If she was ordering their wedding cake, I think the same would apply

Hmm, nice try.

What if the heterosexual person in question was not the 'messenger' for a gay person, but an entirely independent heterosexual commissioning the cake for their own purposes?

Maid possibly because the law doesn't distinguish between ordinary course of business and private business is the reason I'm failing to see your distinction.

The constant reference to the BNP is not analogous . It's irrelevant. I can legitimately refuse to sell cake to a gay BNP supporter or for that matter a gay, black, female SNP supporter. I disagree fundamentally with their political views.
(Apologies to SNP voters , you are not racist, I'm just using you as an example)

If they were going to take a religious stance on their non religious trade they should have marketed themselves as such- I would never have assumed a bakery would have felt the need to express a particular religious view. If they'd called themselves "Asher's -The Christian Bakers" or had a clear message they may have had a valid point. I live in NI and never knew they were such a business. I realise now their name is a biblical reference, but that is something I never picked up on before.

A halal butchers is clearly going to take a particular religious view, it is inherent to their product.

At first I thought that while it wasn't something I agreed with, perhaps it's their prerogative to represent their own beliefs, but then I thought-
How about if they had refused to bake an Eid cake or a cake for a Catholic confirmation?

Unfortunately this particular strain of right wing religion in NI does itself no favours and is known for its intolerance of people not like themselves.

I do think this particular case is muddied due to the political element but those of you who think there's a difference between "public" and "private" business and having basic services which you will provide to everyone and special services you won't provide to others are misunderstanding the point of equality legislation.

I can legitimately refuse to sell cake to a gay BNP supporter or for that matter a gay, black, female SNP supporter. I disagree fundamentally with their political views

By extension, you can therefore legitimately refuse to sell cake to a gay, black, female, gay marriage supporter. Or a gay, black, female, heterosexual marriage supporter.

A person's position on marriage represents a political opinion, no?

Phaedra the point is that a PP mentioned they exercised the same right to refuse commissions when they were approached by the BNP. That was why the BNP comparison was used. Plus the cake was in support of a political campaign. It's not irrelevant. It's the exact same principle.

However if the mention of the BNP is distracting you from the main point then swop it for any one of the other examples given in the thread eg the anti-abortion banner; the anti-feminist campaigns, etc.

The bakery did not refuse to serve a customer. They refused to accept a commission in support of a political campaign.

Phaedra will you drop the house painter analogy? You aren't getting it right.

The bakers didn't refuse to make a cake for a gay person - they make cakes for people of all backgrounds, creeds, races etc.

What they did refuse was to write a slogan on it which they found offensive.

Not offended by the customer - check.
But, offended by the message - check.

It is actually very simple.

I'm a Christian - have been buying Asher's food for years, but only found out when this story broke that they were a Christian firm.

So it isn't like they have banners with Bible verses hanging in their shops, or hide tiny Bibles inside their loaves.

There's no political agenda in who they serve, but they should have the write to avoid creating whatever they find offensive.

Doh, I mean to say, "they should have the right" but said "write" instead.