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!

It's not that big a business- most of their stores are franchises, the store in question is company run. The directors are very hands on and do shifts in the company outlets. It's literally a husband and wife and their son, who did the statement, not a big faceless corporation issuing edicts, like Chick-Fil-A in the states.

Maid I think that, assuming the photographer is not rescinding their agreement on the basis of the person's protected characteristic, that would probably not be direct discrimination. Of course, they might run into problems proving that their decision to rescind was not on the basis of the protected characteristic if the event was very closely related to that characteristic (e.g. if they refused to attend a gay pride event). And it is possible that it could be indirect discrimination as I say above.

There absolutely is a hierarchy of protected characteristics. Not an official one, and there shouldn't be one, but in the liberal consciousness it patently exists. Gay rights trump Christian rights, end of.

Imagine: A Christian campaign goes to a bakery run by two gay men and commissions them to make a cake that says 'Marriage = one man + one woman. Get over it!'. The bakers decline politely and offer to refund the deposit or make a different cake. The Christians take them to court on the basis that religious belief is a protected characteristic. They win, and the two gay men are forced by the Equalities Act to make a cake iced with a slogan they absolutely disagree with, while the Christian campaign goes to the papers with a statement about how unpleasant and discriminatory the bakers were.

I bet you any money that if that happened this entire thread would be full of furious posts denouncing the Christian bigots and upholding the right of the bakers to refuse the commission.

welshwabbit I found your (not too long and very well written) post enlightening, and a good lesson/refresher/example on direct .v. indirect discrimination.

I fully accept your point that refusing to offer a service that promotes gay marriage, when refusal of such a service might unfairly disadvantage a group sharing a protected characteristic, could fall under indirect discrimination.

However, that assumes that the majority of people who support gay marriage are gay, and I'm not sure the absolute numbers would support that (although the proportional numbers may do so).

In the Ladele case the minority judgment in the ECtHR referred to Islington's "obsessive political correctness".

This is more of the same. This is not employment or the provision of some essential or monopoly service. There are other bakers. The customer could go elsewhere. There was no need for the Commission to threaten publicly-funded litigation.

Thanks, Maid! When it comes to indirect discrimination, the proportionate numbers will generally be more important than the absolute ones - necessarily as many of the protected groups will be much, much smaller in number (in the UK at least) than their comparator groups.

exactly Manatee. also being gay is unusual and most people aren't so why are they more important than anyone else.

This is more of the same. This is not employment or the provision of some essential or monopoly service. There are other bakers. The customer could go elsewhere. There was no need for the Commission to threaten publicly-funded litigation.

I am not sure if this is legally important, but I think it should be for policy.

We are not talking about hospitals here, or a group systemically being discriminated against by a particular industry. It's a cake.

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?

You're straying into general contract law and it would depend on the level of commit but probably not without being in breach of contract.

And if the reason for changing your mind is related to a protected characteristic your photographer would have a breach of equality law and a civil breach of contract to deal with.

And if the reason for changing your mind is related to a protected characteristic your photographer would have a breach of equality law and a civil breach of contract to deal with

The word "related" seems to convey a lot of ambiguity (for me).

The photographer can change their mind if they don't want to photograph a BNP rally (if it contradicts their personal political position), because political affiliation is not a protected characteristic.

The photographer cannot change their mind if they don't want to photograph a pro-gay marriage rally (if it contradicts their personal political position), because a political position associated with a group of people who share a protected characteristic becomes de facto protected in itself?

How can that be enforceable? In principle, that means any group of people sharing a protected characteristic can espouse any political position they wish and have legal protection for that political position???

I see a very clear divide here, and admittedly it's not necessarily one that is borne out in law (although I think it should be). Disliking/disagreeing/protesting against a political position should be viewed entirely separately to disliking/disagreeing/protesting against people that espouse a political position.

Rather ironically, it's perhaps best exemplified by the rather Christian motto, used routinely against homosexuality within the Church, of "love the sinner, hate the sin".

On a legal basis this is confusing though.

The NI Assembly did not pass the law allowing same sex marriage, presumably they are allowed to do that because they are the elected law makers. Is there recourse under the Equalities Act to sue a devolved government for discrimination in this case?

Because if there isn't then how can there be legal recourse for compensation from a private firm for not baking a cake relating to a law that the legislators refused to pass?

And of course I do feel the need to reiterate that I think the Assembly should pass the legislation. I'm just curious about the legal aspects of this as it is an unusual context.

YY. While I don't really dig the undercurrent in deakymom's posts, she was bang on in her observation that in NI, supporting gay marriage is supporting an illegal activity.

Businesses can't not sell something to someone because they're gay, black, atheist, religious etc but they can refuse to make a specific thing. They have the right to not make a cake that celebrates or promotes something they disagree with. If you ban them from the right to refuse to create something the next headline will be the gay baker forced to make a homophobic cake with the threat of religious discrimination prosecution if they don't. It goes both ways.

If I was a baker there are lots of requests I'd refuse, anything pro war, anti abortion, homophobic, misogynistic, fascistic, racist. The right to your own beliefs and to not create anything that opposes them needs to be absolute, there is no freedom if you're only allowed to have a conscience when it's sanctioned by the government.

being gay is unusual and most people aren't so why are they more important than anyone else

alemci, do have a word with yourself. Are you 8 years old?

In the case of gay marriage, I believe that gay rights trump religious rights because:
What gay people want doesn't remove rights from any other group of people.
What religious people want does remove rights from other peo

...other people.

So that's very straightforward for me.

writtenguarantee, did you really write the phrase:

a gay cake

The gay cake was not for a gay person, it was for an anti homophobia event held by the mayor

The photographer can change their mind if they don't want to photograph a BNP rally (if it contradicts their personal political position), because political affiliation is not a protected characteristic

No they can't change their mind unless, bizarrely , they managed to take on such a contract without realising who their client is, but once they have entered a contract they can't just change their mind. They will be in breach of contract.

I'm not certain you could pull out of a contract because you subsequently found out it was the BNP without being in breach of contract.

landrover I did a hollow laugh reading your posts where you suggest that gay people 'seek out' these situations presumably in order to claim compo & make a great big gay fuss.

In the gay B&B (also known as the Chymorvah Hotel, before the owners had to suddenly pretend it was a room above their pie shop) case the court specifically made a finding that the couple hadn't gone looking for trouble - otherwise they would not have got any compensation.

And believe me, we don't need to do any seeking. In just the last five years my partner and I have been on the receiving end of discrimination in three hotels - we haven't actually been chucked out (tends to happen more to boys) but in all three, we booked in as a couple & asked for a double room and were pointedly given a twin instead (in one of them, we were put in a dormitory room!) I don't know of any straight couples this has happened to and I would expect that it would come with apologies rather than cats-bum-mouth if it did.

Like most people this has happened to, I've never pursued it to court, even though I'm a lawyer and would be able to draft my own grounds etc.

I think when you assume gay people have the time, energy or inclination to seek out discrimination, you underestimate how much we just manage to come across without looking!

I think when you assume gay people have the time, energy or inclination to seek out discrimination, you underestimate how much we just manage to come across without looking!

^ this

Phaedra I think the main point of my post has been missed.

Given your response, let's assume the photographer has not agreed to take the commission, either verbally or in writing.

Is the photographer allowed to say to the BNP organiser 'Sorry, I do not wish to take this commission because I do not support your political position' yet not allowed to say the same to the pro-gay marriage organiser? Such a situation follows from your assertion/suggestion that any political position adopted by a group of people who share a protected characteristic will become a de facto political position. Can you confirm this is what you intended to assert/suggest?

...de facto protected political position.