Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/10/2018 15:09

I can say what I want = free speech
I can make you say what I want = not free speech

I think people forget that the freedom of speech belongs to the individual at the time of speaking!

It is not, and should never be, a gag with which to stop AN Other individual from speaking!

That's why the law prosecutes for something someone has said not something they may have been going to say, would have said if they hadn't been told to shut up...

... you don't have the right not to be offended. But you also don't have the right to spout hate speech, promote violence etc without the chance of being prosecuted!

anniehm · 10/10/2018 15:22

It depends on how you look at it - it wasn't about the cake, it was the slogan - as artists they didn't want to write a phase they didn't agree with, just like a sign writer refusing, or a singer refusing to work a gig. Personally I don't agree with their stance but businesses can't be forced to accept customers, it's their financial loss of course.

Maybe the law needs to be changed, the court just upheld the existing law

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 15:36

So does this mean I could open a hotel and welcome everyone of any gender, sexuality, race & religion but because of my personal belief, that burkas are offensive, I could refuse entry to anyone wearing one?

I would not be discriminating against any person or any protected characteristic. Everyone welcome, I am just not willing to show acceptance of the message wearing a burka sends out.

Justanotherlurker · 10/10/2018 15:39

So does this mean I could open a hotel and welcome everyone of any gender, sexuality, race & religion but because of my personal belief, that burkas are offensive, I could refuse entry to anyone wearing one?

No, it means you cannot walk into say a Muslim bakery and force them to put a slogan on a cake that read something like "Support Gay Marriage"

You are being willfully obtuse.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 15:43

Justanotherlurker, how is it any different? why should a hotelier have to accept the message that wearing a burka sends out in their hotel? Its not discriminating against any legally protected characteristic.

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 10/10/2018 15:45

It was a provocation against Christians

Catch yourself on.

badtime · 10/10/2018 15:47

Walking, if you also refused service to people wearing other full-body coverings, you may be able to do that. As the burqa is associated with a religion, it would be considered discrimination if you turned away someone wearing a burqa but let ninjas use your hotel.

pennydrew · 10/10/2018 15:49

The hotelier is not being asked to wear or make the Burkha. Refusing to accept business from someone based on them being a muslim, is discrimination based on religion. And you know that.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 10/10/2018 15:55

Really. Those who are proposing false equivalences must know that their arguments are nonsensical.

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 10/10/2018 15:58

There's also the risk of indirect sex discrimination if you ban a garment only worn by one sex. You'd effectively be allowing in Muslim males who hold the view that women should be covered head to toe, but not females who do.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 16:08

Refusing to accept business from someone based on them being a muslim, is discrimination based on religion
But you are not refusing anyone because they are a Muslim, you are refusing to serve someone because they have covered their face. And last time I looked it was not a requirement for all Muslims to cover their face. Which is the whole point of this legal ruling.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 10/10/2018 16:10

not a requirement for all Muslims to cover their face

That is correct. It is not a requirement for women to cover their faces or their hair. Both sexes are required to dress "modestly" but there are no specific requirements.

pennydrew · 10/10/2018 16:10

There is no legal way to refuse business based on what someone is wearing. This isn’t France, you can’t force muslim women to uncover themselves. Why would you want to? Seriously, this comparison is stupid.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 16:11

There's also the risk of indirect sex discrimination if you ban a garment only worn by one sex
There is also the risk of indirect discrimination if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people. And yet the Judges say it is allowed.

BigChocFrenzy · 10/10/2018 16:11

Freedom NOT to be forced to say something, is just as important as the freedom to say what you wish
imo, they are 2 complementary rights

The bakers should not have been required to write a particular text, whether about Equal Marriage or a United Ireland (both of which I support), or stating that religion is crap etc.

They were prepared to offer the cake, plus icing pen to write what the men wanted
That seems fair.

That's not the same as a hotel refusing 2 gay men a bedroom, but more comparable to refusing to provide them with a room and a "God Probably Doesn't Exist" bedspread.

If the bakers had lost their case, it would have put in jeopardy every baker, sign-writer etc of any religious belief - Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu ...
and possibly anyone with strong political views or ethical beliefs like veganism

CuriousaboutSamphire · 10/10/2018 16:12

There is also the risk of indirect discrimination if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people. And yet the Judges say it is allowed. You know that isn't what the ruling meant. Why reach so far to be offended?

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 16:13

There is no legal way to refuse business based on what someone is wearing Or course you can, their are shops/hotels/business etc in the UK that have dress codes for the customers.

pennydrew · 10/10/2018 16:13

not a requirement for all Muslims to cover their face

No but some do and it isn’t illegal to do so, nor is it legal to discriminate if they choose to.

It’s like refusing business to someone wearing a PETA t-shirt. See how silly the comparison is?

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 16:15

You know that isn't what the ruling meant
No I dont know that. Laws are interpreted literally not by the 'spirit' of the law.

pennydrew · 10/10/2018 16:15

Dress codes are different. Singling out only those who wear a face covering Burkha ( not all cover faces and I can’t remember the names! ) is discrimination.

If you had a sign: no covered faces or similar, that’s totally reasonable. You’re specifying only muslim women as only muslim women wear Burkha.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 10/10/2018 16:16

This isn’t France, you can’t force muslim women to uncover themselves.

That is inaccurate. The prohibition is against faces being covered for religious reasons as France has a very strict policy of secularism. It would be illegal for Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews etc to cover their faces in public for religious reasons.

badtime · 10/10/2018 16:16

There is also the risk of indirect discrimination if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people.

The entire point is that they would have refused to put that message on a cake bought by straight people as well (and even in Northern Ireland, many straight people are all for supporting gay marriage, so might well buy that cake).

pennydrew · 10/10/2018 16:17

DisrespectfulAdultFemale

What I said is accurate. Burkha isn’t banned here, nor is covering your face with one. That’s accurate.

France did force women on a beach to remove clothing. I saw it.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/10/2018 16:20

No but some do and it isn’t illegal to do so, nor is it legal to discriminate if they choose to.

Since when? Last I heard the government has said schools (for example) are free to ban face coverings if they want. I dont think anyone has ever challenged whether or not it would be illegal to ban a burka in a business.

Hippywannabe · 10/10/2018 16:20

I don't think anyone should be forced to go against their beliefs ever. They weren't rude, they explained the reasons, why should someone else's rights overrule theirs?
Homosexual people should not be discriminated against ever but their rights do not overrule other people's rights to express their own beliefs.