This ruling, like the preceding one about the Christian B&B, is a tragedy because it's weighing two 'discriminations' against each other. The owners of the cake shop are being discriminated against because insisting on the request's fulfilment would contravene their religious freedom. The gay guys are discriminated against because the response of the baker was driven by the matter of their sexuality (or at least the associated issue). Both are protected in law, but the law doesn't allow for a conscience of faith and therefore - even though this is in my view opportunistic - those that are acting in accordance with that will lose on the black and white of the regulations.
The wording of the message on the cake is a red herring in terms of its legality. It's not illegal to express a view, even if it's opposite to the prevailing law - although some messages might be considered incitement I guess.
It's my personal view that in both cases the religious owners are entitled to work out their faith in their business, provided that is appropriately publicised at the point of an order being place. It's a free market, and if the precise services you want aren't available to you then you go somewhere else. In fact in both cases the owners were willing to provide the service, but on varied terms due to the nature of the request. And in both cases comparable alternatives were available to the customers.
EDIT: Wonder if they'd have been found guilty if a straight guy asked for the same message and was refused...
You're perfectly entitled to this view, which I think is pretty reasonable. However, the law is in place and the judgement is absolutely clear.
I cannot agree, however, with your definition of this being a "tragedy". The judgement has sent out an unambiguous message that discrimination - on certain grounds - is unlawful. That, in my view, is far from a tragedy.
It would appear that so called "equality" rights trump religious rights.
I wonder if the judgement would have been the same had the bakers been Muslims rather than Christian?
I guess we will never know.
What would make you think that the religion of the defendants would change the judgement?
not answering for Len here, but I believe the result would have been different as I believe the courts are very reluctant when prosecuting muslins for fear of offending.
It would appear that so called "equality" rights trump religious rights.
I wonder if the judgement would have been the same had the bakers been Muslims rather than Christian?
I guess we will never know.
What would make you think that the religion of the defendants would change the judgement?
not answering for Len here, but I believe the result would have been different as I believe the courts are very reluctant when prosecuting muslins for fear of offending.
A judge taking into account the religion of a defendant when reaching their judgement would have a very, very short career.
So I can decide not to decorate my cakes with rainbows?
I haven't spent as much time worrying about rainbows as you have, but, in my view, you can decorate your cakes with rainbows or without. It's up to you.
But you need to make sure you're not discriminating against customers on the grounds of sexuality or political beliefs.
OK, so if they were asked to ice a cake with 'kill all Muslim's ' and they refused, they would be breaking the law for discriminating against their personal viewpoint ?
OK, so if they were asked to ice a cake with 'kill all Muslim's ' and they refused, they would be breaking the law for discriminating against their personal viewpoint ?
sigh…no because they would be within the law to refuse making a slogan which was inciting violence and discriminatory, in fact they could be nicked if they did make the slogan. In the case of the slogan requested by the gay customers it was simply to advertise a campaign to change a law and allow gay marriage something not everyone would agree with but not discriminatory .
OK, so if they were asked to ice a cake with 'kill all Muslim's ' and they refused, they would be breaking the law for discriminating against their personal viewpoint ?
sigh…no because they would be within the law to refuse making a slogan which was inciting violence and discriminatory, in fact they could be nicked if they did make the slogan. In the case of the slogan requested by the gay customers it was simply to advertise a campaign to change a law and allow gay marriage something not everyone would agree with but not discriminatory .
And... "kill all Muslim's" shouldn't have an apostrophe.
If I open a shop and refuse to sell alcohol on religious grounds
Remove swastika flags from my product range
Won't sell the bible
Don't stock anything above a size 16
Call it the Black Boy
Advertise Islamic based, anti - British slogans on posters in the window
Don't ice my cakes with rainbows when requested
...am I wrong on all fronts?
No. Stupid, maybe, but not breaking the law.
However, if you refuse to serve people because they are gay, you are breaking the law.
Except, as with the B&B, they weren't refused a service. It was just different to the precise specification the customers made.
You are not permitted by law to discriminate on grounds of either sexuality or religious belief (among others). In both these cases, it could perhaps be reasonably argued that normal service was not made available by the service providers due to the sexuality of the customers. Yet to enforce them to offer the service would compromise the conscience of faith, and therefore the law itself is discriminating on religious grounds.
This is why I called it a tragedy, because no-one's the winner here - surely the best solution would be for the 'offended' to have respected the owners' religious belief and taken their business elsewhere, or accept what was offered (a cake with a different message, two rooms for the price of one). Because both are protected grounds, yet twice sexuality has won out over conscience of faith.
I wonder if anyone would think it unreasonable if the cake shop refused to put a 'death to the gays' message on a cake requested by someone who held a religious belief that homosexuality is publishable by death? To refuse to do so would be discriminatory on the basis of their religion, no? This is the contradiction, allowed by the interpretation of a poorly written law. There does appear to be a sense of opportunism about this one in particular, incidentally.
If I open a shop and refuse to sell alcohol on religious grounds
Remove swastika flags from my product range
Won't sell the bible
Don't stock anything above a size 16
Call it the Black Boy
Advertise Islamic based, anti - British slogans on posters in the window
Don't ice my cakes with rainbows when requested
...am I wrong on all fronts?
No. Stupid, maybe, but not breaking the law.
However, if you refuse to serve people because they are gay, you are breaking the law.
Except, as with the B&B, they weren't refused a service. It was just different to the precise specification the customers made.
You are not permitted by law to discriminate on grounds of either sexuality or religious belief (among others). In both these cases, it could perhaps be reasonably argued that normal service was not made available by the service providers due to the sexuality of the customers. Yet to enforce them to offer the service would compromise the conscience of faith, and therefore the law itself is discriminating on religious grounds.
This is why I called it a tragedy, because no-one's the winner here - surely the best solution would be for the 'offended' to have respected the owners' religious belief and taken their business elsewhere, or accept what was offered (a cake with a different message, two rooms for the price of one). Because both are protected grounds, yet twice sexuality has won out over conscience of faith.
I wonder if anyone would think it unreasonable if the cake shop refused to put a 'death to the gays' message on a cake requested by someone who held a religious belief that homosexuality is publishable by death? To refuse to do so would be discriminatory on the basis of their religion, no? This is the contradiction, allowed by the interpretation of a poorly written law. There does appear to be a sense of opportunism about this one in particular, incidentally.
If you they did make a cake with 'Death to the gays' on who would be prosecuted the bakers or the person who requested it?
OK, so if they were asked to ice a cake with 'kill all Muslim's ' and they refused, they would be breaking the law for discriminating against their personal viewpoint ?
sigh…no because they would be within the law to refuse making a slogan which was inciting violence and discriminatory, in fact they could be nicked if they did make the slogan. In the case of the slogan requested by the gay customers it was simply to advertise a campaign to change a law and allow gay marriage something not everyone would agree with but not discriminatory .
Could a cake maker be found guilty of discrimation if he refused to ice it with a big leaf and the words "legalise cannabis" ?
Campaign to change a law and something not everyone would agree with but not discriminatory. Cake maker's personal decision not to do it and promote ilegal activity.
If I open a shop and refuse to sell alcohol on religious grounds
Remove swastika flags from my product range
Won't sell the bible
Don't stock anything above a size 16
Call it the Black Boy
Advertise Islamic based, anti - British slogans on posters in the window
Don't ice my cakes with rainbows when requested
...am I wrong on all fronts?
No. Stupid, maybe, but not breaking the law.
However, if you refuse to serve people because they are gay, you are breaking the law.
Except, as with the B&B, they weren't refused a service. It was just different to the precise specification the customers made.
You are not permitted by law to discriminate on grounds of either sexuality or religious belief (among others). In both these cases, it could perhaps be reasonably argued that normal service was not made available by the service providers due to the sexuality of the customers. Yet to enforce them to offer the service would compromise the conscience of faith, and therefore the law itself is discriminating on religious grounds.
This is why I called it a tragedy, because no-one's the winner here - surely the best solution would be for the 'offended' to have respected the owners' religious belief and taken their business elsewhere, or accept what was offered (a cake with a different message, two rooms for the price of one). Because both are protected grounds, yet twice sexuality has won out over conscience of faith.
I wonder if anyone would think it unreasonable if the cake shop refused to put a 'death to the gays' message on a cake requested by someone who held a religious belief that homosexuality is publishable by death? To refuse to do so would be discriminatory on the basis of their religion, no? This is the contradiction, allowed by the interpretation of a poorly written law. There does appear to be a sense of opportunism about this one in particular, incidentally.
If you they did make a cake with 'Death to the gays' on who would be prosecuted the bakers or the person who requested it?
For what it's worth, I believe anyone should have the right to determine their services and the market to whom they wish to offer it. It's important to protect people from discrimination, of course it is, but what right-minded person would force a Muslim organisation to employ someone who held views vehemently opposed to theirs, for example?
Gentlemen's clubs for gentlemen. WI meetings for women. Proud Valiants (when were we last called "Valiants" - do I smell another rat?) for LGBT. Most people wouldn't want to offer their custom to an organisation with whom they shared few or no values. I think we need to get over ourselves a little, make companies be clear as to who their products are for and who they're not up front, and just get on with it. Life's too short for the courts to be bothered with 'unlike the baker round the corner they wouldn't write what I wanted' complaints - because, frankly, that's what it is.
My son in law has a business running a wedding venue. He has employed a muslim guy for some years and he has made it clear he will not be able to handle alcohol, so can't help unload deliveries of wine, so he mainly drives on errands My daughter who is 6 months pregnant asked him to help unload some shopping, which he did apart from a Sainsbury's bag containing bottles of wine. He is however the kindest most thoughtful person you could imagine. He found someone else to help unload the car.
Should my daughter have been offended, she actually apologised and said she forgot about the alcohol thing.
At what stage does a sincere religious belief trump the right not to be regarded as a diminished person for participating in legal social activity regarded as offensive on religious grounds. Is being offended for being gay different to being offended for drinking wine? She isn't, but she could have been suffering from chronic alcoholism.
Just testing some logic here. Would gays be better off adopting my daughter's perspective and recognising that no offence is actually intended in these religious stand offs, you choose whether to be offended or empathetic. Gays have won the right to be accepted as part of open society haven't they, they don't have to seek out minor skirmishes with sections of religious society whose prejudice is kept under wraps and only gets noticed if a light is shone in their direction.
The reported case seems a contrived incident on the part of a gay activist. If gays really want a fight why don't they seek out a Muslim baker given their religious leaders still regard homosexuality as illegal and execute them in most countries.
A gay person with any sense would naturally go to a supplier that meets his needs or sensibilities and avoid one that obviously wasn't suitable and would have no reason to artificially create an opportunity to be "offended".
It's a slippery slope that should have been halted by allowing commercial enterprises to have the same rights as any other person, that is to choose what activities they choose to participate in. It is their right to determine what offends their sensibilities as a supplier, not the right of a consumer to be offended by refusal of a service.
It does the cause of making gay society indistinguishable from the rest of society no favours.
Comments
I cannot agree, however, with your definition of this being a "tragedy". The judgement has sent out an unambiguous message that discrimination - on certain grounds - is unlawful. That, in my view, is far from a tragedy.
Surely to not discriminate it would be the same for anything and everyone?
I wonder if the judgement would have been the same had the bakers been Muslims rather than Christian?
I guess we will never know.
Remove swastika flags from my product range
Won't sell the bible
Don't stock anything above a size 16
Call it the Black Boy
Advertise Islamic based, anti - British slogans on posters in the window
Don't ice my cakes with rainbows when requested
...am I wrong on all fronts?
However, if you refuse to serve people because they are gay, you are breaking the law.
P.S. My family are Belfast!
But you need to make sure you're not discriminating against customers on the grounds of sexuality or political beliefs.
You are not permitted by law to discriminate on grounds of either sexuality or religious belief (among others). In both these cases, it could perhaps be reasonably argued that normal service was not made available by the service providers due to the sexuality of the customers. Yet to enforce them to offer the service would compromise the conscience of faith, and therefore the law itself is discriminating on religious grounds.
This is why I called it a tragedy, because no-one's the winner here - surely the best solution would be for the 'offended' to have respected the owners' religious belief and taken their business elsewhere, or accept what was offered (a cake with a different message, two rooms for the price of one). Because both are protected grounds, yet twice sexuality has won out over conscience of faith.
I wonder if anyone would think it unreasonable if the cake shop refused to put a 'death to the gays' message on a cake requested by someone who held a religious belief that homosexuality is publishable by death? To refuse to do so would be discriminatory on the basis of their religion, no? This is the contradiction, allowed by the interpretation of a poorly written law. There does appear to be a sense of opportunism about this one in particular, incidentally.
Can of worms?
Campaign to change a law and something not everyone would agree with but not discriminatory. Cake maker's personal decision not to do it and promote ilegal activity.
Gentlemen's clubs for gentlemen. WI meetings for women. Proud Valiants (when were we last called "Valiants" - do I smell another rat?) for LGBT. Most people wouldn't want to offer their custom to an organisation with whom they shared few or no values. I think we need to get over ourselves a little, make companies be clear as to who their products are for and who they're not up front, and just get on with it. Life's too short for the courts to be bothered with 'unlike the baker round the corner they wouldn't write what I wanted' complaints - because, frankly, that's what it is.
Should my daughter have been offended, she actually apologised and said she forgot about the alcohol thing.
At what stage does a sincere religious belief trump the right not to be regarded as a diminished person for participating in legal social activity regarded as offensive on religious grounds. Is being offended for being gay different to being offended for drinking wine? She isn't, but she could have been suffering from chronic alcoholism.
Just testing some logic here. Would gays be better off adopting my daughter's perspective and recognising that no offence is actually intended in these religious stand offs, you choose whether to be offended or empathetic. Gays have won the right to be accepted as part of open society haven't they, they don't have to seek out minor skirmishes with sections of religious society whose prejudice is kept under wraps and only gets noticed if a light is shone in their direction.
The reported case seems a contrived incident on the part of a gay activist. If gays really want a fight why don't they seek out a Muslim baker given their religious leaders still regard homosexuality as illegal and execute them in most countries.
A gay person with any sense would naturally go to a supplier that meets his needs or sensibilities and avoid one that obviously wasn't suitable and would have no reason to artificially create an opportunity to be "offended".
It's a slippery slope that should have been halted by allowing commercial enterprises to have the same rights as any other person, that is to choose what activities they choose to participate in. It is their right to determine what offends their sensibilities as a supplier, not the right of a consumer to be offended by refusal of a service.
It does the cause of making gay society indistinguishable from the rest of society no favours.