Cake is a human right - county court in Belfast holds it is illegal to refuse to make 'Support Gay Marriage' cake

[InnTheJungle]

It seems a bit of a dubious ruling really.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

'The judge said Ashers is "conducting a business for profit", it is not a religious group.'

Lots of business are run for profit, but it doesn't mean they must maximise profits at all costs.

It was held that the bakery discriminated against the purchaser who wanted 'Support Gay Marriage' printed on a cake.

Which is a political slogan which either gays or heterosexuals could use.

I would feel more comfortable with the ruling had they simply refused to make, say, a standard wedding cake for a gay couple.

Although of course gay marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland.

I am not really clear what the boundaries are here, if you are an ISIS supporter can you go and get a pro-jihad cake made as part of your religious rights?

sliceofsoup it could have gone under the radar and no one would ever have known. Or someone could have said 'great cake, where did you get it?' and when they heard it was Ashers they have a wee giggle at the hypocrisy (they are well known in the area as a Christian owned business) and tell someone else, who tells someone else...

And Christians are as willing to boycott businesses as non Christians. Eg I know people who refuse to shop in Tesco because it has supported gay rights charities. Not that it will hurt Tesco, but in a country as small as NI it could certainly hurt Ashers to lose the respect of a significant proportion of their customers.

I am not sure why some people seem to think their religious beliefs somehow cancel out the law

They think, correctly, that the law is supposed to protect their religious beliefs. However, courts seem unwilling to give them the protection that the law provides.

In some areas they don't have a case. In others they do. In this particular case I think they do, if for no other reason than that the judge's ruling appears to be based on the idea that any customer ordering a cake with the slogan "support gay marriage" must be gay. Personally I find that assumption repugnant.

Just to add to that, it is not in any way discriminatory for this bakery to refuse to make a cake with the slogan "support gay marriage". The judge has performed logical gymnastics to find against the bakery on the basis that anyone ordering such a cake must be gay, which is clearly not true.

And, sliceofsoup, if you support such rulings you need to think about what will happen if the political climate changes and we get a fundamentalist Christian or Moslem government. You could then find that, rather than LBGT rights trumping religious rights the position is reversed. So, for example, a gay baker could be successfully prosecuted for refusing to make a cake with the slogan "Save Ulster from sodomy". No change in the law would be required for this decision. Would you be happy with that?

And going back to an earlier post, refusing to bake a cake with a slogan on it is not in any way disagreeing with the democratic process. It is disagreeing with a particular campaign.

In my view the courts are currently setting up a hierarchy of rights where the right of LBGT individuals not to be offended trump the rights of religious people, particularly if they are Christian. That is not what the law sets out. These rights are equal. The courts should uphold both equally.

But as a PP has pointed out, the individual can hold religious beliefs, but as a business they cannot. The judge made clear that as their business was for profit and was not of a religious nature, their own personal religious beliefs cannot come into the decision making process. The owners themselves have not been found guilty, the business has.

Which completely sidesteps my point.

Following the logic of this decision a gay baker could be successfully prosecuted for refusing to make a cake with the slogan "Save Ulster from sodomy". Are you happy with that?

And remember that the prosecution only succeeded because the judge was of the view that only a gay purchaser would ask for a cake with the slogan "Support gay marriage". Logically, if the purchaser had in fact not been gay the baker could have refused to make the cake. So do bakers now have to determine the sexuality, religion, etc. of purchasers before deciding whether or not to agree to put a slogan on a cake? That is the logical consequence of this decision.

I do wonder whether this case actually hinges on when the refusal happened and how it was done. I'm sure most bakeries and signwriters etc have a notice saying they can refuse any job, in particular signs which could cause offense. My impression from the quotes of the ruling is that they could have refused to make a certain cake and legally that could have been for any reason so would be ok, but accepting the order and then specifying it was the message that was the reason for reneging was deemed to break the law. Which would be a much more subtle point.

Can anyone point me to the full text of the decision?

prh47bridge in the example you give of a gay baker being prosecuted, no minority group is being put at a disadvantage/ discriminated against by the refusal to make the cake so is it still a comparable case?

I've got to agree with you citrus. I think most discrimination is infact underhand. Wrapped up as legitimate other reasons like full order book etc. This case they put their cards on the table.

It side steps your point because your point isn't relevant. I can see why the wording is being taken the way it is, but I personally felt there was more weight in the fact that they were acting as a for profit business, rather than they knew the customer was gay.

If your situation was to happen, then I would weigh up the argument then. But this case wasn't a single baker. It was a company. I don't believe that every single employee who was capable of making that cake held those beliefs, and if that is the case, then are Asher's also guilty of employment discrimination?

Would I want a gay baker to make the cake you suggest? No. But do I think a business can turn away that customer because the owner is gay? Also no.

"But as a PP has pointed out, the individual can hold religious beliefs, but as a business they cannot.

"The judge made clear that as their business was for profit and was not of a religious nature"

But that's a load of bollocks isn't it. 'The Entertainer' closes on Sunday, rather than pursue profit, for religious reasons.

This baker takes its name from The Bible, the judge has no right to tell them that they must only make profit with no other considerations.

You might as well say that businesses shouldn't give to charity either, because it doesn't make them any profit.

Surely the difference is the Entertainer closing is not discrimination against any individual group where as refusing to sell a cake to someone because, as ruled, they are gay clearly is.

As would be if they would not do business as a business with people from any ethnically diverse group, or minority religion.

The judge hasn't told them profit is the only consideration. Whats been stated is one persons pound is as good as any others. Take everyone's or take none. The Entertainer on a Sunday choose to take none.

I'm a baker and sometimes turn down cake requests. Some people want some really fugly cakes that are not the sort of thing I want to be associated with. Like I wouldn't like to make one of those hideous 'baby emerging from vagina' cakes. I isually turn down cupcake orders even, as I mainly do big celebration cakes and cupcakes are a drag.
I wouldn't turn down the Bert and Ernie cake in question personally, but this has got me thinking whether I'm right or wrong to turn down some work.
Anyway, just thinking out loud really.

The Entertainer is welcome to sell the products it likes (ie not Harry Potter) and when it likes (not Sundays). What it can't do is stock toys and then at the till refuse to sell a certain toy if I mention it's for my girlfriend's child or if I plan to wave it on a Pride march.

Turning down something because you think it is ugly or distasteful is one thing. And if they had said 'sorry we are too busy' it would probably been fine. Discrimination law says that it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation or perceived sequel orientation in the provision of goods or services. This means it doesn't matter if they were guy or straight, or if you would refuse a boy staying overnight at your house as someone said up thread. The law also protects religious beliefs, but they are trumped by all other protected characteristics, quite rightly.

"Surely the difference is the Entertainer closing is not discrimination against any individual group where as refusing to sell a cake to someone because, as ruled, they are gay clearly is. "

But they might also refuse to sell a 'I Have Two Daddies' or some similar book.

In this case they didn't refuse to sell the cake to a gay person, they objected to the message on the cake, which could perfectly well have been bought by a heterosexual person.

I've just thought of something. It's hypothetical and just a 'what if' but, back in the bad old days in N Ireland it was not unusual for businesses to refuse to serve police officers. Not because they hated police officers (although they might have done, who knows) but because businesses who provided services to police or security forces were then considered to be 'legitimate targets', so many businesses declined to serve them, for their owners and staff's safety.

Would a ruling like this, which as I understand it reinforces the concept that you can't decline business based on who the customer is, also apply in such circumstances?

Or to put it in a less NI specific context, could a business refuse to serve someone who they thought had an unethical job? Eg a vegan cafe owner refusing to serve a customer because they know that the person works in a lab that experiments on animals?

Yes because a person who works in a research lab is not protected under discrimination legislation. The law protects against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. Religion is protected but it is not protected when the belief is discriminatory to another protected group.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense

'But they might also refuse to sell a 'I have two daddies' or some similar book.'

Thats then a very separate argument to closing to all customers.

Its an interesting one too. I can see it as limiting a customers choice but all shop keepers do that or every store would be a mega one. On the same line of reasoning you could ask do they have to have a racialy diverse mix of dolls or can they just select ones they know will sell? I'd have to sway slightly towards they should offer a selection within a product range or have a very clear business case that there is no demand. So their choice not to sell is demand based rather than a statement of view.

I guess that it would make an interesting case, but i like the Entertainer i've found their customer services excellent on several ocassions. It would be more interesting if these things could be pursued without damaging businesses where people are trying to balance personal moral/ ethical stance and the very complex legal system not to deliberately exclude or discriminate.

Heres another one to throw in the melting pot. An all day breakfast cafe serving bacon and sausages pork products being something that are not consumed by various minority religions does this exclude them from the majority of the meals? Restaurants not offering Halal meat options does that exclude those who for religious reasons consume Halal? What about if all food had to be both Halal and Kosher, is that even possible?