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!

the couple wanted a design featuring two Muppet characters on the cake

No they didn't . Bert & Ernie are from Sesame Street, not the Muppets.

do you want to go back to the days when landlords could put up signs saying "no blacks or Irish"? And presuming you don't, what's the difference in this particular case?

The difference is that they did not refuse to serve the customer because he was gay, they refused to ice a slogan they found offensive.

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 wonder what this thread/conversation would look like if the issue was Christian v. Christian which I'm given to understand is the default position for certain segments of the population in NI.
What if this was a church wanting a cake for a fundraiser, and the bakery - due to the cultural, religious and political affiliations of the owners - said 'No, we refuse to make a cake which promotes that church'? Would they be within their rights to do so, or would people think they were law breaking trouble-makers?

if a gay baker refused to make a cake for a Christian organisation, a cake which for example declared opposition to gay marriage, would that be ok?

I think that would be OK, yes. Opposition to gay marriage/homosexuality in general is a consciously made decision. Being gay isn't.

If I were in Northern Ireland I'd be boycotting this firm.

Owl Bert and Ernie are Muppets from Sesame Street. They're both Jim Henson Productions. Which is why Kermit used to be a regular on Sesame Street and then got a gig hosting The Muppet Show.

I am so uncomfortable with all of this
I make cakes for money
I choose whether I want to take commissions, it is MY choice.
I do not have to justify it to anyone.
I lose out because I don't make money because of my choices.

I haven't ever turned down a cake based on moral/religious reasons but why shouldn't I be allowed?

just also been thinking, I am not sure I would make a cake that specifically promotes something I don't believe in.

I wouldn't make a pro-BNP cake
or a Ban the Bomb cake
or anything to do with any campaign that I don't necessarily support as my making of the cake suggests my support for that cause (even if I have been paid for it)
I should be allowed to make that choice

'Kermit used to be a regular on Sesame Street and then then got a gig hosting The Muppet Show. really made me giggle.

Strumpers same here.

I used to make cakes for a living.

I have never actually turned down a commission for moral/religious reasons, I have when I've been fully booked or just didn't fancy making something or whatever, but I feel I should not have to make something that I personally find offensive/goes against my religious beliefs.

Personally, I have no religious beliefs and do support gay marriage, and I gave up cake making long ago, but it makes me feel uncomfortable to think I could have been forced to make something I found offensive or didn't agree with

'a business . . .having a company-wide policy that they will not make cakes for gay campaign groups
Except that isn't what happened here, is it? Queerspace asked one branch and then that bakery decided not to make the cake. Perhaps the individual bakers in that branch felt the same as Stinkie ie that they had the right to refuse to make the cake.

Legally, I think this is distinguishable from the "gay B&B" case. In that case (which resulted in dissenting views from two members of the Supreme Court), the claimants were refused a double room at the B&B because they were a gay couple. The B&B owners argued that the refusal was not "direct discrimination" (which is where the discrimination is because of a particular protected characteristic) because the reason for the treatment was the couple's unmarried status. They would equally have turned away an unmarried heterosexual couple.

The majority (3 judges) in the Supreme Court found that there was direct discrimination against the couple, essentially because if you are gay you cannot, by definition, be married (or at least you couldn't at the time). The two dissenting judgments held that this was indirect discrimination, which occurs where the business applies a "provision, criterion or practice" (basically a rule) which disadvantages a group with a protected characteristic more than it disadvantages others. So the rule is facially neutral, but in fact adversely affects more (e.g.) gay people than it does straight people. The difference between direct and indirect discrimination is that indirect discrimination can be "justified" by the discriminator, if they can come up with a good, non-discriminatory reason for it. In the event, the two dissenting judges found that the rule of refusing double rooms to unmarried couples could not be justified in that case. So the B&B owners would have lost either way.

The reason why I think this is different is that the bakery in this case do not appear to have treated the person who ordered the cake less favourably "because of a protected characteristic", which is what is required by section 29 of the Equality Act, when read with section 13. It appears that the reason why they refused the order was because it required them to produce a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage. It seems likely that they would have refused the order regardless of the sexual orientation of the person placing it (as some people have already said above). That means this may well not be direct discrimination. It would certainly stretch the concept beyond the interpretation in Preddy (the gay B&B case) - which was already a stretch too far for two of the judges.

BUT that doesn't mean the case can't fall within the Equality Act at all. As cakes with a message of this kind are more likely to be ordered by people who are homosexual, there would be an argument that a rule under which the bakery will not create cakes with pro-gay marriage slogans amounts to indirect discrimination as explained above. The bakery would then have to justify their stance. For those of you who are interested, the dissenting judgments in the gay B&B case are worth reading on this point.

PS apologies for length!

The statement was from the company directors but that didn't lead me to assume that it was enforced from on high iyswim? I was imagining someone in the shop had flagged it as an issue and then the directors felt they had to make a statement.
But you could be right or I could be, I guess we don't know about that aspect.

if a gay baker refused to make a cake for a Christian organisation, a cake which for example declared opposition to gay marriage, would that be ok?

Not sure , you have 2 opposing characteristics. If it were a Christian couple who somehow made their views known when ordering the cake I'm not sure whose protected rights trumps. There is case law that disability trumps religion (the Muslim taxi-driver who refused to take a guide dog acted unlawfully)

Stinkie I'm glad you never turned down a commission on the basis of disapproving of someone on the basis of a protected right as you would be disriminating.

Can we please get away from this idea that refusing a commission is somehow different from refusing to sell something in a shop. If you refuse for no reason other than you don't like the gender, race, religious belief or colour of the person you are discriminating unlawfully. It might be far harder to prove as you'd say"I was too busy/can't do that type of work" not "I don't like ...."

Strumper none of your example are protected. You are free to refuse any of them.

NinjaLeprechaun, just noticed you quoted a bit of what I wrote- I mentioned this a while back in this thread, but what if they were asked to bake a cake for Eid or for a catholic communion? That wouldn't match their beliefs either, but I don't think anyone would think that would be acceptable.

Can we please get away from this idea that refusing a commission is somehow different from refusing to sell something in a shop

Can someone explain why this is? Briefly, as I'm not a legal bod. Would such rules apply to someone who works on commissioned work only e.g. a photographer? If not, why not?

If you refuse for no reason other than you don't like the gender, race, religious belief or colour of the person you are discriminating unlawfully

I don't think anyone is disputing this?

Phaedra Both doobledooth and I asked you the same question earlier. Any thoughts?

Phaedra: 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

Me: 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?

Er Maid if you read your own post you can see the answer to your question. Yes it would apply to a photographer unless he/she somehow only ever worked for people he/she approached first, which seems an unlikely way to run a business.

If you are in the business of being a commercial photographer you can turn down a commission on many grounds which will be legal but if you're turning it down solely because the person who asked is gay or black you are discriminating unlawfully.

Maid I would be cautious of assuming the objection to doing business with a supporter of gay marriage (particularly if that person is also gay) would be taken as objecting to their politics.

Likewise as there's no political movement opposing straight marriage (apart from Julie Bindel) I'd probably assume that the objection in either case related to some other characteristic and the person objecting is clutching at straws.

Maid if you offer services on a commissioned basis, that is no different from offering them generally from the point of view of the Equality Act. The difference I was trying to outline in my (very long, sorry!) post is nothing to do with the way in which the services are offered, but is between refusing a service because someone is gay (direct discrimination) and refusing to provide a particular type of service (e.g. a slogan supporting gay marriage on a cake). In my view the latter is unlikely to be direct discrimination, as they would probably have refused to provide that type of service to anyone, gay or straight, but it could be indirect discrimination.

So, someone could approach a photographer to ask if they might be willing to cover an event in six months time. The photographer gives a preliminary "yes". The photographer then learns that the event is to promote a political/social ideology that s/he disagrees with (regardless of what protected characteristics the host of the event may or may not possess) and is not allowed to rescind their agreement to cover the event?

I would be cautious of assuming the objection to doing business with a supporter of gay marriage (particularly if that person is also gay) would be taken as objecting to their politics
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

If I do understand you, I agree that the objection to doing business with a gay supporter of gay marriage is, in this case, unlikely to be simply a matter of conflicting politics. What I think I'm saying is that it is perfectly possible to frame it as such (as had the bakery had more nous, they would have done so).

Likewise as there's no political movement opposing straight marriage (apart from Julie Bindel) I'd probably assume that the objection in either case related to some other characteristic and the person objecting is clutching at straws

There doesn't have to be a political movement opposing straight marriage for any single individual to have genuine opposition to straight marriage.