Guest MattP Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 I support gay marriage (why shouldn't gay couples be entitled to the same misery as straight couples? ) and would have supported a case brought if the bakery had refused to serve the bloke because he was gay. I strongly disagree with this judgement, though, as an infringement of free speech / freedom of expression. Provided they are not inciting hatred, breaking the law or whatever, individuals and businesses should be able to express whatever views they like - and customers can judge them accordingly. Neither should they be compelled to express views they disagree with. Presumably, if a Northern Irish campaigner against gay marriage now orders a cake bearing the slogan "Oppose gay marriage" from a gay baker, that baker will be legally obliged to provide it? Ridiculous! If it became law in England, presumably I'd be obliged to translate the wisdom of Jean-Marie LePen for the BNP, if asked, and could commission Webbo to come round with a pot of red paint to do a nice hammer-and-sickle design on my wall, complete with the slogan "Kick the Tories out" and he'd be unable to refuse....except if it wasn't profitable. Because that's an interesting part of the grounds for the judgment: apparently commercial motives are the only ones permitted in business decisions, not religious views, or presumably other moral, ethical or political opinions. On that basis, presumably all these "ethical business" initiatives should be illegal, unless they are shown to be motivated solely by commerce/profit? (They often are, to be fair!) How does this all fit in with the right of businesspeople to trade with whomsoever they want? A pub landlord doesn't have to even give a reason for refusing to serve somebody, provided it is not discrimination. Wetherspoons just lost a case like that because a particular pub imposed a blanket ban on Travellers. I agree with that judgment, as it's discrimination on racial/ethnic grounds - they should just have refused to serve any individual Travellers who behaved rowdily, disturbed other customers or whatever. Absolutely spot on.
ADK Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 I was surprised by the judgement but if you read the reasoning then you can understand why they ruled the way they did. There's no rigid hierarchy of rights, as both the business and customer had conflicting "rights" regarding expression of religious belief and expression of political opinion. They just ruled that the customer's rights were breached while the businesses weren't. A lot of examples people give are not equivalent. As I understand it, you are allowed to discriminate on political affiliation but not on political opinion. You could refuse to make a cake with a BNP, Tory, SWP, Labour etc logo on it. It reminds me of reading that the BNP newsletter was printed in Iran, not sure if that is still the case, but presumably no British publisher wanted to be associated with them. Yet I don't agree that "political opinion" should be protected in this way. Though it doesn't come down to conflicting rights. I wouldn't want to be forced to back opinions I disagreed with. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against political opinion.
Captain... Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Has it been mentioned anywhere whether they have Ts & Cs allowing them to refuse any design that is offensive? If so the wording would have to be very clear such as the cake maker reserves the right to refuse any design that they consider may cause offense. Then they would only need to prove that it may cause offense (probably not that difficult), and not that they are offended by it. I'm not sure if such a disclaimer is legal, but it makes sense to me. Without any such disclaimer they are at fault for not fulfilling their contract, and should refund the price of the cake, and may even be liable for damages if they were unable to source a replacement cake at short notice, but in no way should they be forced to make a cake they don't want to.
MooseBreath Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Appalling judgement in an overwhelmingly pathetic case.
ADK Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 It wouldn't make a difference. You can't just write a disclaimer absolving you of any responsibility to abide by the law. They've already been found in breach of the law and ordered to pay damages. All they can do is appeal the judgement and going forward, maybe there will be discussion on whether the law should be amended.
Jon the Hat Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 This ruling is mad. If a business chooses not to provide a service for whatever reason that is their call.
Guest MattP Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 A country that currently borrows 90 billion a year to get by spends thousands of pounds on a court case about whether or not a person should be forced to bake a gay cake. When our debt and borrowing finally hits us and we can't afford to give people medical care, pay benefits to those who need it etc etc I can you imagine what people will think when they look at the things we spent money on? We're supposed to be the most enlightened generation there has ever been and we'll probably end up being looked at as the stupidest.
Captain... Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 It wouldn't make a difference. You can't just write a disclaimer absolving you of any responsibility to abide by the law. They've already been found in breach of the law and ordered to pay damages. All they can do is appeal the judgement and going forward, maybe there will be discussion on whether the law should be amended. But is there a law on gay cakes? If there was a law saying you can't refuse to print anything requested by a customer then fair enough, but I don't think there is. This is a contract entered into by 2 parties and one failed to deliver, depending on the terms of the contract and if they were agreed by both parties then there may be a case for breach of contract, but not for discrimination. They didn't refuse to serve him, they didn't discriminate against him, it was nothing to do with the customer if the customer had been straight and they had refused to make the cake would they still have discriminated against him (or her). They disagreed with the message, as is their backward bigoted right, and didn't want their product to be associated with it.
ADK Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 But is there a law on gay cakes? If there was a law saying you can't refuse to print anything requested by a customer then fair enough, but I don't think there is. This is a contract entered into by 2 parties and one failed to deliver, depending on the terms of the contract and if they were agreed by both parties then there may be a case for breach of contract, but not for discrimination. They didn't refuse to serve him, they didn't discriminate against him, it was nothing to do with the customer if the customer had been straight and they had refused to make the cake would they still have discriminated against him (or her). They disagreed with the message, as is their backward bigoted right, and didn't want their product to be associated with it. Thing is a court of law agreed with the defendant that he was discriminated against. By offering personalised cakes, the bakery should have been aware of their obligations not to discriminate. You can disagree with the way the law is, but that is how it is. So yes, if the customer had been "straight" it would still have been discrimination.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Went into a shop that sells stuff for left-handed people today and was told flat out that they didn't have anything for "right-handed people" (or normals, as they are more commonly referred as). Writing to my solicitor - gonna be quids in!
MooseBreath Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Thing is a court of law agreed with the defendant that he was discriminated against. By offering personalised cakes, the bakery should have been aware of their obligations not to discriminate. You can disagree with the way the law is, but that is how it is. So yes, if the customer had been "straight" it would still have been discrimination. They were under no obligation to produce something they found offensive. This is not the application of existing law but the creation of new law.
Rincewind Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Went into a shop that sells stuff for left-handed people today and was told flat out that they didn't have anything for "right-handed people" (or normals, as they are more commonly referred as). Writing to my solicitor - gonna be quids in! I have a friend who went in Tall and Large but was disappointed when they had no trousers that fitted a midget. Can they share a lawyer with you?
Steven Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 From Monty Python in a sketch where they blackmailed people "We're not here to moralise, we just want your money" That should be every business persons' creed else they are not in business and just being a bigot.
ADK Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 They were under no obligation to produce something they found offensive. This is not the application of existing law but the creation of new law. Not really, the quoted act was introduced in 1998 with amendments in 2006. Unless you think the judge got it wrong which is a possibility but there is no new law.
MooseBreath Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Not really, the quoted act was introduced in 1998 with amendments in 2006. Unless you think the judge got it wrong which is a possibility but there is no new law. The act doesn't say that you can't refuse service in these circumstances so it is a new interpretation, in effect new law. You can't blame the bakery for not knowing how a judge might interpret an act. I do think the judge was wrong, as well.
Webbo Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 if asked, and could commission Webbo to come round with a pot of red paint to do a nice hammer-and-sickle design on my wall, complete with the slogan "Kick the Tories out" and he'd be unable to refuse....except if it wasn't profitable. I can assure you, if you're paying, I'll paint it.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 I'll bake a cake for anyone that wants one, as gay as you like. No big deal. It's only fair to mention I'm really shit at baking, though
Merging Cultures Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 It is abhorrent that people discriminate. It doesn't make any sense to me. However, unless they are the sole provider of a product or service, or there are significant barriers to entry that prevent new businesses starting up, people should be able to choose who they do business with.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 This is of course in Northern Ireland, so if a republican went into a unionist owned shop and asked for a cake decorated with Gerry Adams and a masked man holding a rifle, then they would have to make it? Or can I now go to The City ground in full LCFC colours and demand a seat in the Trent End when we play them next?
fleckneymike Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 The slightly 'odd' thing in all this is that the chaps wanting the gay wedding cake can't actually get married because it isn't recognised in Northern Ireland. How can the government prosecute a baker for refusing to 'support' something which they themselves don't support?
Captain... Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 The slightly 'odd' thing in all this is that the chaps wanting the gay wedding cake can't actually get married because it isn't recognised in Northern Ireland. How can the government prosecute a baker for refusing to 'support' something which they themselves don't support? The cake was to say "support gay marriage" it wasn't a gay wedding cake. Which begs the question of gay marriage isn't legal can it be discriminatory to refuse to bake an illegal slogan? If it said support rape or support paedophilia then surely nobody could be expected to make that cake. Not equating gay marriage with either of those things but as all 3 are illegal then you shouldn't be forced to make cakes that support illegal activities.
The Blur Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Tricky one this, if bakers won then will it not encourage religion discrimination- shops refusing to serve a wheelchair user due to his/her disability because it was against whatever religion Glenn Hoddle believed in or a nightclub refusing to let a Muslim in because they had a different god to whoever the bouncer believed in? Humanity should be above ALL religion.
fleckneymike Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Tricky one this, if bakers won then will it not encourage religion discrimination- shops refusing to serve a wheelchair user due to his/her disability because it was against whatever religion Glenn Hoddle believed in or a nightclub refusing to let a Muslim in because they had a different god to whoever the bouncer believed in? Humanity should be above ALL religion. But the bakers didn't refuse to fulfil the order because of the customers sexuality, they refused to fulfil the order because the decoration was contrary to their religious beliefs (as well as the 'law' of the land) and promoted an aspect of sexuality they didn't agree with. If the state forbids gay marriage it seems a tad unreasonable to then hypocritically prosecute a business which agrees with your stance.
The Blur Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 But the bakers didn't refuse to fulfil the order because of the customers sexuality, they refused to fulfil the order because the decoration was contrary to their religious beliefs (as well as the 'law' of the land) and promoted an aspect of sexuality they didn't agree with. If the state forbids gay marriage it seems a tad unreasonable to then hypocritically prosecute a business which agrees with your stance. Oh fair enough.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.