To think that the Christian bakery case has potentially created a dangerous precedent.

[SummerGems]

So, Christian cake bakers in NI have won their appeal against their refusing to bake a cake with a gay marriage slogan on it.

The judges have voted unanimously that this was not a case of discrimination or politics but that it was about freedom of speech and that they would have refused to make the cake even if it had been a straight person wanting the cake with a gay slogan on it...

But the sexuality argument aside, this has surely raised some questions in terms of the equality act and how far one should be allowed to go against that in the name of free speech?

After all,if your beliefs decree that people with disabilities are so because of the sins of their ancestors, or that single parents are committing wrong,should they be allowed to say so and refuse to serve them on the basis of their beliefs? Where does this end?

I think it's terrible how Bert and Ernie are being used as gay icons.

They were NOT gay.

It was about the message, not the person.

It was about the cake itself not the gay people.

They didn't refuse anyone service. They refused to print a slogan. They would have made a different cake with no comment.

What was the slogan?

Can't get worked up about this, it was the message they objected to not the customers.

YABU. The bakery was found not to have refused to serve them. They simply disagreed with the message they were asked to write on the cake. By the same token, anyone should be able to refuse to say something they don't agree with, eg someone giving a speech that contains something they feel to be offensive.

YABU. The baker did not discriminate because they treated the customer the same as the would have any other customer requesting that particular cake. If they'd refused to serve them because they were gay, that would be discrimination. But a heterosexual person wouldn't have been sold that particular cake either, so it's not.

I bake cakes, sometimes for money. I wouldn’t bake a cake with a slogan I didn’t agree with - the customers are irrelevant.

So where does that end though? The slogan is still relevant to people, even if not to those particular people. Would it be ok for them to have e.g.stated in their catalogue or slogan list or whatever it is they might have that “sorry, but due to our beliefs we will not be prepared to include any slogans which make reference to homosexuality,” for instance?

I don't know the details of the case but society must uphold free speech, as long as it is not hate speech.
Upholding free speech will be good for women and the trans debate. Maybe we can get back to debating and stop all the no-platforming.

It’s a fair ruling IMO. The only person a business damages by refusing to take revenue is themselves and they have the right to do that. This shouldn’t have gone to court.

Of course if they’d refused to serve the customers a plain cake because they were gay then there would have been an issue.

They offered them the same cake without a slogan, and a tube of writing icing to add it themselves...

To look at it another way, would you expect a Jewish or Muslim restaurant to serve roast pork? It's the same principle as the cake question, a customer wants a particular item and the business refuses to accomodate their request because of their beliefs. They are not refusing to serve them at all, just declining a specific item that the customer is free to buy elsewhere.

I can guarantee that if I went into a Jewish delicatessen and demanded a BLT, threatened to take them to court etc., I'd be the person considered to be in the wrong.

The cake said 'support gay marriage'

I’m free to bake whatever I choose to.

For example, I don’t do wedding cakes. Can’t take the stress.

It’s fine to say ‘no wedding cakes to anyone’ and not to say ‘no wedding cakes for gay people’.

Gaawd, this thread is making me hungry!!!!

Would it be ok for them to have e.g.stated in their catalogue or slogan list or whatever it is they might have that “sorry, but due to our beliefs we will not be prepared to include any slogans which make reference to homosexuality,” for instance?

Would you think it right if a Muslim bakery was forced to bake a cake in the image of prophet Mohammed?

So, if you say that they have the right to refuse to print anything they want,then surely they also have the right to print anything they do want? E.g. “women should be beholden to their men,” or “disability is the result of sin.”

On principle I agree with the notion of free speech, however I equally think that free speech gives rise to the ability to promote hate. Because if you have the right not to say something,then you equally have the right to say something, and this is where the potential arises for being allowed to cause offence in the name of free speech and/or your beliefs...

I wouldn’t have taken it to court either, and it does seem apparent that this activist was trying to make a point. And it’s worth bearing in mind that this has gone to appeal so they have lost at least one case to get this far.But I do think that it raises pertinent questions because we often fight for rights and equality based on what people do say, and if we are arguing that people have the right to say what they want, then we are surely also arguing that those who are offended by this fact are the ones responsible for being so i.e.victim blaming....

I wonder what the decision would be if they refused to print ‘some women have penises’. The outcome to that court case would be very very interesting.

In MN terms, if a radical feminist baker refused to sell a cake that said 'Trans Women Are Women', the original decision would have considered that discrimination, the appeal decision would say it was not, as long it was the message rather than the customer which was being refused.

Whether you agree with this or not, at least it clarifies the law.

Would you think it right if a Muslim bakery was forced to bake a cake in the image of prophet Mohammed?
Well said, no-one would think it ok to force a Muslim/Jewish person to do something which is against their faith, but Christians seem to be fair game these days.

It is okay to have an opinion that differs from the opinion we are told we should have.

I agree with the ruling, if not the message.

crosspost