Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

565 replies

SummerGems · 10/10/2018 11:46

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?

OP posts:
Bouchie · 10/10/2018 23:06

They were in their rights to refuse. still makes them homophobic twats.

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/10/2018 23:06

Where did Gareth Lee admit he deliberately targeted Ashers Pierre?

psychomath · 10/10/2018 23:11

Those of you arguing that the bakers shouldn't have been allowed to refuse because sexual orientation is a protected characteristic, so is religion - should a gay baker be compelled to ice “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” on a cake if it's requested by a Christian?

psychomath · 10/10/2018 23:11

And if they refuse, are they being bigoted?

Cantarese · 10/10/2018 23:34

I agree with the ruling, no one should be made to write/create/draw etc anything that they don’t want to.

JAPAB · 10/10/2018 23:56

are my beliefs and choices equivalent to my identity?

Strongly held beliefs can be a part of your identity. Attacking them can be like an attack on someone's identity.

Although refusing to write a message in support of a belief is very different to writing a message against that belief.

Wouldn't really class the former as an attack/threat.

LassWiADelicateAir · 11/10/2018 00:22

Although refusing to write a message in support of a belief is very different to writing a message against that belief

A good point.

thisneverendingsummer · 11/10/2018 00:28

@justanotherlurker

Yeah, I thought as much.

You can't produce evidence of Ricky Gervais slagging off any other specific religion (only Christianity!) Because he never HAS slagged off any other religions specifically (I mean, actually NAMED another one!)

All your conjecture and waffle is doing, is proving you are making claims, with nothing to back them up.

Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that Ricky Gervais slags off other religions SPECIFICALLY - so he actually names them, then do the decent thing and admit you're wrong.

And yeah I have seen him doing stand up, and no he DOESN'T slag off any other religion then either. Only Christianity.

BigChocFrenzy · 11/10/2018 07:37

Well considering what happened to the Charlie Hebdo satirical paper
or even Salmon Rushdie ....

btw, on the rare occasion I have refered to the Sky Fairy, I mean he / she / it in all their guises:
god, allah, jehovah ...

BigChocFrenzy · 11/10/2018 07:51

Trying to force other people to act according to your beliefs is one characteristic of "authoritarianism",
which occurs on both the hard right and hard left, just on different issues

Unfortunately, it is growing, at both ends of the political spectrum

I support equal marriage but this particular case was a power play, a setup from the very start
So, I am glad of the final result

I assume the bakers would receive costs - although they may have received funding from their community.
These costs will of course come from the taxpayer, part of the approx £10 billion annual subsidy that we all pay to NI
(which btw is more than the net EU annual contributions for the entire UK)

BigChocFrenzy · 11/10/2018 07:57

It's not just about religious freedom:
noone should be forced to validate someone's else's beliefs

Imagine at a General Election, a bakery run by a known Labour supporter being forced to produce a "May4PM" cake,
or a Conservative a "JC4PM" one.
Or just anyone who can't stand politics being forced to do either

FloralCup · 11/10/2018 08:19

I agree with the ruling.
PPs are using a bakery analogy - should a bakery be forced to sell pork sandwiches if it serves chicken and beef - NO.
But what would happen in this situation: a bakery sells both pork and chicken sandwiches. A bunch of kids come in and order pork sandwiches. You know one of the kids is Jewish/Muslim. Can you refuse to serve them the pork sandwich as you know it's against their belief to eat it but the kid is too young to understand that. Is that discrimination or are you upholding religious beliefs?

prh47bridge · 11/10/2018 08:45

this particular case was a power play, a setup from the very start

According to the evidence given in court, Mr Lee had bought cakes from this bakery previously but, because the owners do not advertise their beliefs, he did not know anything about their beliefs. If there was evidence that he had deliberately targeted this shop to make a point I would expect that to have been part of the bakers' case. But I would agree that Mr Lee should never have taken this to court and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (who were criticised in the Court of Appeal despite that court ruling in Mr Lee's favour) were wrong to get involved in the way they did.

prh47bridge · 11/10/2018 09:13

Can you refuse to serve them the pork sandwich as you know it's against their belief to eat it but the kid is too young to understand that. Is that discrimination or are you upholding religious beliefs

If a case went to court I would expect them to find discrimination in that you are refusing to serve someone with a pork sandwich due to their religion. You are not required to uphold religious beliefs. You are required to avoid discrimination. However, I think that is academic as I would be very surprised if such a case went to court. If you knew the parents did not want their child eating pork you would almost certainly be safe as they would have to take any legal action on behalf of their child, so they would be sueing you for not allowing their child to eat something they did not want their child to eat.

2madcats · 11/10/2018 09:43

Sorry if I missed this being pointed out already but until this case hit the headlines no one knew that this was a fucking Christian bakery ! Neither are they some wee family run shop they have a large shop on a main city centre street !

I for one am glad that the case was brought in the first place as I can now avoid ever setting foot in the place or buying any of their products which frequent hundreds of supermarket shelves !

Hideandgo · 11/10/2018 09:46

2madcats, I and many many friends have been boycotting these absolute bastards since the case started. Bigoted wankers. Maybe they will go after the Catholics next and refuse to make any holy communion cakes......according to many on this thread that’s perfectly acceptable.

2madcats · 11/10/2018 09:47

My concern now is that Ian Paisley (that upstanding Christian who is currently engaged in some v unchristian behaviour !! ) is asking for questions to be asked of the equality commission which could seriously impact their future ability to support those being potentially discriminated against !

2madcats · 11/10/2018 09:49

Hide and go your name made me laugh as this is literally what I do to their products on the shelves 😉

Hideandgo · 11/10/2018 09:51

I will join you in that and pass this practice on.

DGRossetti · 11/10/2018 10:22

As a tax-funded body, the Equality Commission should be ashamed of having wasted thousands of taxpayers' money on this.

Apparently, as a test case, it was quite cheap ? And a judgement like this means no need to take anymore cases forward - so possibly a long run saving ? (If I understand what lawyers are saying ?)

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 11/10/2018 10:28

But what would happen in this situation: a bakery sells both pork and chicken sandwiches. A bunch of kids come in and order pork sandwiches. You know one of the kids is Jewish/Muslim. Can you refuse to serve them the pork sandwich as you know it's against their belief to eat it but the kid is too young to understand that. Is that discrimination or are you upholding religious beliefs?

Oh, for heaven's sake. For what must be the 200th time, the shop did not refuse to serve the customer because he was gay. They refused to ice a cake with a slogan that went against their political / religious beliefs.

I despair at posters' inability and / or unwillingness to read what has been discussed at length.

itsatiggerday · 11/10/2018 10:43

I don't understand why it would matter whether the customer knew they were a Christian family firm or not? He's not expected to mind read their views. Just to accept that when they decline to fulfil an order and point him in the direction of a competitor they think will be able to help him, he accepts that is their decision to make and gets his cake made somewhere else.

He can choose to take all his custom elsewhere in future because he doesn't like their stance. But the ruling says he can't require them to fulfil his order because they are allowed to hold a different opinion from him (even a minority opinion) and not act in contradiction to it.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 11/10/2018 10:56

I don't understand why it would matter whether the customer knew they were a Christian family firm or not? He's not expected to mind read their views. Just to accept that when they decline to fulfil an order and point him in the direction of a competitor they think will be able to help him, he accepts that is their decision to make and gets his cake made somewhere else.

Well, there you go, using common sense an' all.

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 11:07

Oops! Just started a thread on this - didn't realise this one was going.

I think the verdict was an absolute victory for common sense and protects freedom of speech and freedom of belief, which imho is much more important than hurt fee fees. But it cost that bakers £200,000 in legal fees which just shows how much the equality industry stinks.

I assume those that believe that the bakers should have been forced make a cake emblazoned with a message that they profoundly disagree with should also be forced to make swastika cup cakes?

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 11:23

Bigoted wankers. Maybe they will go after the Catholics next and refuse to make any holy communion cakes......according to many on this thread that’s perfectly acceptable.

They should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. What's wrong with that?