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:
ThePrincipal · 10/10/2018 12:07

Yabvu

Merryoldgoat · 10/10/2018 12:07

People say things all the time that are offensive but not illegal.

Of course you can put them on a cake. People will judge you for it but that’s the price of having shitty views.

ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen · 10/10/2018 12:11

You're not making any sense OP.

Freedom of speech is just that.

By your very dodgy reasoning, the bakers could also be forced to make a cake with a swastika printed on top because "The slogan is still relevant to people, even if not to those particular people."

MemoryOfSleep · 10/10/2018 12:11

I think Evelyn Hall said it best,

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/10/2018 12:15

The original 2 rulings made me far more uneasy!

Telling people that they must do something that is against their beliefs, opinions, morals or simple desire to do, in order not to simply upset or discommode A N Other is a short step from a totalitarian state!

As it is this last ruling allows that the bakers had nothing against the individual but chose to turn down work that they were uncomfortable with - plenty of other baker's being available and, generally, the freedom of a business to run down trade as it sees fit!

Original poster
SummerGems · 10/10/2018 12:15

Would you think it right if a Muslim bakery was forced to bake a cake in the image of prophet Mohammed? I think that depends. If they were known to be a muslim bakery I would assume that the customer had requested it to try to prove/make a point. If it wasn’t known to be a muslim bakery and as in this case they took the order and didn’t come back for several days to say that they couldn’t do it after all as it went against their beliefs I would wonder what had changed and why.

In this case the order wasn’t refused on sight. The order was taken and then refused some days later. So it’s possible that they weren’t advertising as a Christian bakery and that the client didn’t know that they were. And it’s clear that the bakery didn’t have established guidelines as to what they would and wouldn’t print as the order was originally taken and not refused until the owners became involved.

Similarly a Jewish restaurant refusing to sell a BLT, if a BLT wasn’t on the menu then I wouldn’t expect to buy one there. But if the BLT was on a menu and a waitress refused to serve me on the basis she was Jewish and being so meant she couldn’t handle bacon she would be the one being unreasonable.

OP posts:
bridgetreilly · 10/10/2018 12:16

The ruling is completely fair. They have to serve anyone, and they did. He was NOT discriminated against because of his sexuality, because plenty of people in favour of gay marriage are not gay themselves. What they do not have to do is produce political propaganda for a message they disagree with. So, for example, a gay baker does not have to produce a cake with an anti-gay marriage slogan on it. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

justwantedalaugh · 10/10/2018 12:16

Cakes should be just simply delicious and not used for politicking. It's asking too much of bakers' confectionery IMO.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/10/2018 12:17

I think that depends. If they were known to be a Christian bakery I would assume that the customer had requested it to try to prove/make a point. If it wasn’t known to be a Christian bakery and as in this case they took the order and didn’t come back for several days to say that they couldn’t do it after all as it went against their beliefs I would wonder what had changed and why. And they did, and were told why! Anything is possible

Genevieva · 10/10/2018 12:18

I think the point is that the bakers did not refuse to serve the customers because of their sexuality. They would have happily baked a cake for them. What they refused to do was write down a sentence that they did not believe in. That is a really important distinction. No one should be forced to say or write a statement they don't believe in.

Justanotherlurker · 10/10/2018 12:19

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.

Free speech works both ways, you can't stop someone say something just because you disagree (beyond obvious restrictions) and you can't force someone to say something they don't want to say by penalty of law.

And if you are worried about the potential rise of hate speach from this, if the ruling had gone the other way then it could potentially make it illegal to refuse to make a cake that said "Support the National Front"

bridgetreilly · 10/10/2018 12:19

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.”

They don't have the right to refuse to print anything they want. They have the right to refuse to print POLITICAL SLOGANS they disagree with. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

UrsulaPandress · 10/10/2018 12:20

I'm sure I have read somewhere that they did do it to prove a point.

abacucat · 10/10/2018 12:21

I agree OP.
Tempted to set up a gay bakery that refuses to have any slogans that refer to opposite sex marriage.
In Britain, religion trumps equality law.

OnlyMakeBelieve · 10/10/2018 12:21

So, for example, a gay baker does not have to produce a cake with an anti-gay marriage slogan on it

This x 100.

Like the man said: "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Or not say it, in this case.

abacucat · 10/10/2018 12:25

, if the ruling had gone the other way then it could potentially make it illegal to refuse to make a cake that said "Support the National Front"

Except the National Front are not protected under equality law. This is homophobic, simple as that.

AlphaBravo · 10/10/2018 12:26

OP this is exactly where it ends. This is showing where the line is drawn. Why is that hard to grasp?

They refused to make a cake against their own religious beliefs. They didn't refuse to serve the customer - they offered to make another cake.

Are we supposed to force people to do things against their own beliefs or desires now to appease everyone? Do you know what that's called in other circumstances?

Stop being a goady fucker.

PaintingOwls · 10/10/2018 12:27

I bake too. I'd refuse the following messages (list not exhaustive) regardless of who requested it:

  • die cis scum
  • punch a terf
  • age is just a number in love
  • men are trash
  • kill the infidels
  • gay sex is a sin
  • congratulations on your abortion

Freedom of speech. It matters.

People are getting side tracked because the content was re gay marriage and it's a hot topic at the moment with the recent marriage equality in the UK.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 10/10/2018 12:28

I understand the bakery's argument and don't have a problem with it. They didn't refuse service to an individual; they refused to decorate a cake in a way that the customer wanted.

I suspect that the customer chose that particular bakery to make a point so I can't feel a lot of sympathy for him.

Somerford · 10/10/2018 12:31

Tempted to set up a gay bakery that refuses to have any slogans that refer to opposite sex marriage

Go on then. I support you.

Dahlietta · 10/10/2018 12:31

Surely OP, you can imagine a slogan that you would refuse to ice onto a cake?

OnlyMakeBelieve · 10/10/2018 12:32

Tempted to set up a gay bakery that refuses to have any slogans that refer to opposite sex marriage

If that was something you believed in, under this ruling, you could do just that. That's why it's not discriminatory. It says NO ONE has the right to make you do something you don't believe in.

speakingwoman · 10/10/2018 12:33

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.”

Yes

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.

I remember when it was "hatred"

Because if you have the right not to say something,then you equally have the right to say something,

not necessarily. forced speech is worse than being silenced

and this is where the potential arises for being allowed to cause offence in the name of free speech and/or your beliefs...

Christ, I am offended every day!

I wouldn’t have taken it to court either, and it does seem apparent that this activist was trying to make a point.

^fair enough. that is the nature of activismAnd 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....

Justanotherlurker · 10/10/2018 12:34

This is homophobic

No it isn't, hence why this ruling has turned out the way it has.

You are trying to make political opinoins a protected class, and I would prefer not to have that so I can refuse to work with Nazis.

You seem to have ignored the point of my post that freedom of speach works both ways.

bridgetreilly · 10/10/2018 12:35

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...

No, because if what they wanted say was hate speech, there are already other laws which prevent them. Seriously, are you deliberately trying to misunderstand this case? It is NOT about any of the things you keep posting about.

Swipe left for the next trending thread