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!

Suburban No! Of course not!
a) the bakery did not refuse to serve anyone.
b) supporting the right of a business to choose which commissions they take is not equivalent to supporting this bakery. I have already said up thread that while they should be allowed to do this, I will not be buying their products again. (They're a reasonable sized operation, saw their scones in Tesco this evening.).

in Acts in the NT there is Peter's dream where he is told he can eat what he likes so the shellfish is a bit of a red herring (pardon the expression).

not sure about the young boy and man in Romans.

anyway if he wasn't comfortable with this situation or what was being expected of the bakery maybe he felt he had to take a stand.

SuburanRhonda what an odd link when no-one on this thread has said the baker could or should refuse to serve a customer based on their sexuality

They refused to make a specific cake to support a political campaign. They didn't refuse to serve a customer.

In the past I worked in PR, legally I could refuse to work on certain campaigns or issue specific statements.

This entire argument is not just about a baker having the right not to bake a cake. It's actually a much bigger issue regarding employment rights and provision of service. I am concerned that so many posters would blithely give up that protection or erode those rights.

I have dealt with both the manager and the director who called the customer and explained that wouldn't be carrying out the order in a professional capacity (not involving cakes). I wasn't too impressed with the manager to be honest, but the director was genuinely a lovely, lovely woman. Very concerned about the wellbeing of the people who worked for her, courteous, happy to help with anything- you could tell she was just a nice person, no front to her. I was aware previously that Ashers are a family bakery and the family are devout, "good living" types. When I first heard about this my first instinct was "why the fuck did they let him deliver that statement", followed by a suspicion they'd been targeted, for want of a better word.

I disliked the language he used about "making stands". Times are changing, NI will have gay marriage sooner or later, just as we eventually legalised being gay. And there won't be such a disparity in timescale either. People like this are like Cnut trying to hold back the tide- you can't stop it, it will happen. However, I do think it's within their rights to not endorse or supply goods which will be used in a campaign which goes against their conscience. If I were say, a graphic designer, and those Christian pro-lifers who campaign against abortion in Corn Market approached me and asked me to design and print a sign with an "aborted 12 week baby" on it, I would tell them to stick it. Probably in a less polite way than Mrs McArthur refused the cake commission. And I'm bloody glad I have that right. This will harm their business to a certain extent, but I think a lot of people can see the nuances of the issue here.

I see your theological point, manic, but most Christians shoot themselves in the foot on that one by quoting Leviticus to support their bigotry refreshingly traditional views.

This entire argument is not just about a baker having the right not to bake a cake. It's actually a much bigger issue regarding employment rights and provision of service. I am concerned that so many posters would blithely give up that protection or erode those rights

I agree. Too many people focusing on the correctness or otherwise of the baker's position and not enough emphasis on the rights that are eroded by this draconian piece of legislation.

What rights have been eroded by this draconian piece of legislation, op? Please can you give examples?

If you could link to which specific parts of the act you disagree with that would be most helpful actually.

'Draconian piece of legislation' = Equality Act? Sorry, I got distracted by Mississipi.

Well, it's your thread, you have the floor, why don't you tell us all which specific rights are eroded by it. Emphasise away.

[I'm sure the way that Mississippi 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' is written gives Muslims the right to practise Sharia law. That could get interesting.]

This is where I get myself in a liberal muddle claraschu there wouldn't be a campaign for inter racial marriage because there is no law against different races marrying. Presently in Northern Ireland there is a campaign for same sex marriage to be legal.

I want same sex marriage to be legal here (and abortion for that matter) but whilst I think that those who don't want this law are wrong and homophobic and I will try to change their minds if in discussion with them, I still see them as having the right not to agree with a law that has not yet been passed, but then if I apply that logic to a scenario where inter-racial marriage was illegal and there being a campaign to change the law it makes me think I must be wrong, as I wouldn't support racism or anyone's right to be racist.

Maybe this feels different because they aren't actively campaigning against something, they haven't been distributing material with homophobic slogans or actively supporting a campaign against same sex marriage, if they had it would be so much more obvious, but they just chose not to support this particular cause. Who gets to choose the legislation that we're allowed to object to?

I don't particularly are one way or another about who is right, but I do object to certain gay groups "setting people up" for publicity! (remember the christian b and b couple who lost their livelihood?

Are you seriously trying to suggest there aren't rights being eroded here?

Of course there are.

The right of a business to contract on whatever terms they choose. Fundamentals of contact law, first year law school.

It goes to the very heart of our freedoms. Now, you may say that that is a price you are willing to pay. That you are willing to exchange part of your freedom in this way. That is absolutely fine. There are times when the erosion of rights is a good thing.

We would all agree that the erosion of our right to kill people is a good thing because it benefits society as a whole.

But any suggestion that there isn't a right at stake here is ludicrous. Someone is being forced to do something they don't want to do. That is the very definition of the erosion of a right.

yes I agree about the b&b case. there seems to be similarities.

they should have just baked the damn cake. The homophobic dickhead owner of the bakery said :

"I feel if we don't take a stand on this here case, then how can we stand up against it, further down the line?"

Why does he need to make a stand against anything? Someone wants a cake, its not offensive, pornographic, lewd, or sweary. I hope he gets the book thrown at him. If he was targeted then clearly he has done something else to make the organization who "targeted him" see him as a viable target who will display his disgusting homophobic opinions.

So supporters of the bakery would be happy if we went in this direction?

again, we need to distinguish making a cake for gays and making a gay cake. it seems that this mississippi law allows for the former, which is bad.

Would anyone defend the cakemakers right to object to interracial marriage?

yeah, i think that should probably be allowed.

this isn't 1930s america where there is a serious problem with this. in those days refusal of service really hurt the black american community. Nowadays, refusal of service would hurt the business.

I am perfectly ok with people having to treat others reasonably, and not discriminate against them because they are women, black, Jewish etc.

That is what the equalities act says.

You say it is a draconian piece of legislation. Please cut and paste the parts that you disagree with.

Land rover if someone is doing something that is against the law, what is wring with shining a light on it?

There was a tv prog recently with hidden cameras showing up racism in home lettings. I think things like that are quite valuable.

People are defending this shit???!

FFS

It seems that the slippery slope would be people compelled to provide services and conduct activities that are against their own beliefs and political positions.

When you work for the State, or with the general public, you are compelled not to discriminate. When you operate any aspect of your business privately, and wish to do so under your own moral code, you should be free to do so.

This is a horrible case to use for illustration purposes, because I utterly reject the 'moral code' displayed by the bakers in question. However, I am able to extrapolate their situation to my own feelings - how would I feel if I were compelled to bake a cake for a pro-life group, or for the local white suprmacists? - and know that I would absolutely assert my right to not be involved in the promotion of those messages.

Now, you can argue about 'protected characteristics' and so forth but those are just what's written down in law at this time. The basic principle is: should you, in your own private life, be compelled by others/society to actively engage in activities which contradict your own beliefs?

Maid you want the laws all changed then?

OP, I don't think the HRA is draconian, indeed I would like to see it extended to cover the rights of women in NI to have abortions. Nor do we know if the bakery's refusal to bake this cake contravenes this act. I hope not.

Read the thread, all of you exclaiming horror.

People are discussing the principles at stake, not defending the right for businesses to stick up signs saying 'No gays, please', or whatever you incorrectly imagine the defending position to be.

Yes I see you do.

I do not want to return to a society where it is legal to sack a woman for getting pregnant, advertise a job "whites only", gassy people have to hide their lives for fear of being found out and losing their jobs.

Jesus Christ.

This thread is appalling. I know people feel like this but to actually " meet " them is disconcerting.

Maid you want the laws all changed then?

How the fuck did you arrive at that idea?