Implications of the Irish gay cake ruling

[MIdgebabe]

Specifically No one is required to manifest a belief that they do not hold

I could just eat a bit of gay cake...

Although my instinct is to side with the gay couple, I think this is a good ruling.

An analogous situation would be a Christian asking a bakery run by LGB people to bake a cake against equal marriage quoting Leviticus. The claim would then be discrimination against religious characteristic if they were refused.

Its not the people that were refused service for their characteristic. They could have had a different product. The owners cannot be compelled to create something which gives a message they disagree with. It would be different if they refused to serve a gay couple a cake they have already designed like a generic wedding cake.

If I made cakes I would like the freedom to reject designs that are racist, pro Tory, anti-choice etc. I wouldn't expect an ethically vegan cakemaker to make a design that was pro meat slaughter. Etc etc etc.

f I made cakes I would like the freedom to reject designs that are racist, pro Tory, anti-choice etc. I wouldn't expect an ethically vegan cakemaker to make a design that was pro meat slaughter. Etc etc etc.

Indeed. I agree.

I think this is a great result, it stops compelled speech. I can think of a few compelled speech phrases I would like to have stopped as they conflict with my views......

Exactly what CrabbityRabbit said. I deeply disagree with the cake maker's views, but their right to hold those views protects us all.

Irish gay cake

It IS discriminatory, what if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple ? No difference at all

while i agree with free speech for actual debatable things, in this case its just meant they can and are supported to holding a belief that is outraged,damaging and hateful .

out dated not outraged

"If I made cakes I would like the freedom to reject designs that are racist, pro Tory, anti-choice etc. I wouldn't expect an ethically vegan cakemaker to make a design that was pro meat slaughter. Etc etc etc."

If you refused those designs, that wouldn't be discriminatory against a protected minority though..

GG88
That's the key point - they were quite prepared to sell them a cake, just not with that slogan on it. Hence the win in the Supreme Court.

If they'd refused to sell them any cake at all they'd have been (rightly) hammered for it but that's not what this case was about. Just ask Peter Tatchell.

GreyGardens they didn't refuse to bake the couple a cake. They would have baked a cake without the message on, or another message. They refused to bake a cake that expressed a message they did not agree with.

The ruling has made very clear it's not about allowing people to be discriminated against based on who they are.

It is simply making clear that you cannot be compelled to promote something you do not agree with or believe in. That's it. It's nothing to do with refusing service based on someone's identity.

@greygardens88 I think the ruling would be the same for an interracial couple- the issue wasn’t that they were gay it’s what they wanted on the cake- as far as I know anyway

GreyGardens88
They didn't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, they refused to make the cake because of the pro gay marriage slogan, they would have made a cake without the slogan. Whilst I don't agree with their views I can see the distinction and I agree with the ruling.

It IS discriminatory, what if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple ? No difference at all

It wasn't that they refused to make the cake for the couple (they had served the couple previously apparently) it was that they refused to put the message 'support gay marriage' on the cake.

Ok, thanks for explaining that the cake can contain a message because I was wondering why a b&b cannot turn a way a gay couple but the bakers don't have to make a gay cake. I get it now.

Was being gay in Ireland allowed at the time? I think it was quite close to them allowing gay marriage iirc so I think leway should be given to catch up with legislation

Saying that I think people in shops should be allowed to say no I mean there is such a thing as respect for the other persons views you have to weigh it up belief bed business

Belief vrs buisness ffs

I'm pleased with this ruling.

They offered to make the entire cake and decorate it, and supply a free tube of writing icing. It was the slogan, not the people.

@GreyGardens88 They didn't refuse to make the cake though. They just refused the wording. They even said they would do the cake and they could then do whatever wording themselves.

I'm gay and before this whole trans "repeat after us" nightmare I would have been on the side of the gay couple. However, I feel I've grown more politically sophisticated.

This distinction between ones obligation to treat people equally, and an obligation to support something you don't support, is an important one.

It would be totally different if they refused to serve gay people, but that's not what happened. They opposed the message not the people.

Nuance eh, a tricky beast.

Peter Tatchell was very good on r4 at lunchtime about this. He totally agrees with the ruling.

As I was listening I wondered how I would feel if the law forces me to make a cake saying ‘trans women are women’. Or similar.

while i agree with free speech for actual debatable things, in this case its just meant they can and are supported to holding a belief that is outraged,damaging and hateful

Once, gay people not being permitted to marry was a ubiquitous view. Gay marriage was not a debatable thing. If we lived in a country which only allowed discussion of mainstream views gay marriage would never have happened.

Was being gay in Ireland allowed at the time?

Of course being gay was allowed. You refer to gay marriage I assume. This case is NI though. No gay marriage here.

I agree with the ruling FWIW. I also believe they may have been set up to refuse it. I might be wrong though.