Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Bill said:
You seem to be saying that minority groups shouldn't be looked after by society. That is mob rule.
Ah, I see your point now.These are not minority groups in the accepted sense. They are very much evangelists for their sex/gender orientation and go to tremendous lengths and artifices to proclaim their 'rights' under human rights legislation.
They harass and badger influential people far beyond what might be considered proportionate to the levels of discrimination actually prevalent in general society. They could even be considered zealots for their cause. Then when they encounter what many would consider to be reasonable objections to what they demand, demands put in a firm but essentially polite way, they invoke the wrath of the legal system using committed and apparently unlimited funds to publicise their 'struggle'. All this on the back of poorly drafted legislation, cobbled together and stitched up using very coarse thread that leaves huge gaps between the stitches.
Unsurprisingly, this does their cause more damage than benefit and raises hackles that would otherwise draw a degree of sympathy. As a society we have come a long way but at the expense of lost time and well meant effort, not a little ridicule, and tragedy. It's about time it was realised that volume does not validate an argument.
I hope all the foregoing posts of mine are composed in moderate language and are taken as they are meant - not a critique of the movement or its objectives - but critical of the pathetic antics of their inept supporters. To that end it would be helpful if when 'quoting' a post it was not a selective reference. Context is all.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You're missing quite a fundamental point here. The reason you don't experience that much racial discrimination is partly due to the Political Activism of the Civil Rights movement, who fought pretty damn hard to win the rights that you so blithely take for granted now. Likewise the Gay Rights movement employed quite a bit of Political Activism too in order to win their rights. Just like the Feminism Movement did before that (and, even earlier, the Suffragettes). In fact history is full of it.
There is an upcoming referendum in Ireland to do with allowing gay people to have the same right to get married as heterosexual people do ie. to end the discrimination that disallows it. I have no doubt that this court action was Political Activism in support of that. I'm not condoning it, and I'm not saying that it was fair that the bakers in question were made pawns of in this way, but that was almost certainly the motivation.
JensenA said:
I agree with Thoridin. If I wanted a nice traditional Christmas cake making,liberally laced with brandy of course, and went to a local bakers and asked them to make one, and they said "Sorry, the owners are Muslim, and won't put alcohol in it". I would respect their views and go to another baker who would make it for me. I certainly wouldn't bother consulting a lawyer to see if their were any legal grounds for me to sue them.
But they won't put alcohol in for anyone. They are not discriminating against Christians, as they wouldn't put alcohol in a cake for a muslim who wasn't devout and liked alcohol. They are treating all their customers the same by saying none of you are getting alcohol in your cakes.As I said before, people keep taking the case in question where the owners acted illegally and then comparing it to things that aren't illegal, like refusing to ice cakes with Nazi symbols, cartoons and now alcohol. It's bloody stupid and it doesn't move the discussion forward.
I have to say I find it difficult to see the company's POV in this case. I've followed the arguments on this thread but have come away as bewildered as when I started. For me, if they have religious convictions then so be it. There's nothing the state can do about that, and there's nothing the state should do about that.
But they are running a business where, as we have seen, their convictions come into conflict with the accepted norms of the society they live in. I believe that if they want to be good christians, or at least good followers of their particular sect, and many other sects would have had no problem with this cake, then is it not up to them to ensure either that they don't refuse legal requests or they find some sensible way around it?
Morals have moved on and many actions which were acceptable in the past have now become illegal or at the very least a matter of public disdain.
I'm not a very good business person, but I know the law. There are umpteen simple routes they could use to avoid this confrontation. Not to do so is illogical and, as we have seen, expensive.
The customers have been portrayed as belligerent. I have no idea if they were or not. But the bakers chose a very odd route to follow.
I follow no religion, other than as a disinterested, and amused in many cases, observer so this problem with sex seems all rather odd to me.
What keeps going through my mind is that it is a cake. Just a cake. I studied the bible a fair bit a few years ago and cake making is not mentioned in Leviticus.
It is all rather silly.
As for the comment about aggressive gays, I think there are still battles to be won for equality. How can we have Dineage as equalities minister? This is (excuse the phrase) a slap in the face to those who believe in equality. It must be deliberate. Yet it has hardly had a mention.
The whole cake thing is rather silly.
But they are running a business where, as we have seen, their convictions come into conflict with the accepted norms of the society they live in. I believe that if they want to be good christians, or at least good followers of their particular sect, and many other sects would have had no problem with this cake, then is it not up to them to ensure either that they don't refuse legal requests or they find some sensible way around it?
Morals have moved on and many actions which were acceptable in the past have now become illegal or at the very least a matter of public disdain.
I'm not a very good business person, but I know the law. There are umpteen simple routes they could use to avoid this confrontation. Not to do so is illogical and, as we have seen, expensive.
The customers have been portrayed as belligerent. I have no idea if they were or not. But the bakers chose a very odd route to follow.
I follow no religion, other than as a disinterested, and amused in many cases, observer so this problem with sex seems all rather odd to me.
What keeps going through my mind is that it is a cake. Just a cake. I studied the bible a fair bit a few years ago and cake making is not mentioned in Leviticus.
It is all rather silly.
As for the comment about aggressive gays, I think there are still battles to be won for equality. How can we have Dineage as equalities minister? This is (excuse the phrase) a slap in the face to those who believe in equality. It must be deliberate. Yet it has hardly had a mention.
The whole cake thing is rather silly.
Thorodin said:
Ah, I see your point now.
These are not minority groups in the accepted sense. They are very much evangelists for their sex/gender orientation and go to tremendous lengths and artifices to proclaim their 'rights' under human rights legislation.
They harass and badger influential people far beyond what might be considered proportionate to the levels of discrimination actually prevalent in general society. They could even be considered zealots for their cause. Then when they encounter what many would consider to be reasonable objections to what they demand, demands put in a firm but essentially polite way, they invoke the wrath of the legal system using committed and apparently unlimited funds to publicise their 'struggle'. All this on the back of poorly drafted legislation, cobbled together and stitched up using very coarse thread that leaves huge gaps between the stitches.
Unsurprisingly, this does their cause more damage than benefit and raises hackles that would otherwise draw a degree of sympathy. As a society we have come a long way but at the expense of lost time and well meant effort, not a little ridicule, and tragedy. It's about time it was realised that volume does not validate an argument.
I hope all the foregoing posts of mine are composed in moderate language and are taken as they are meant - not a critique of the movement or its objectives - but critical of the pathetic antics of their inept supporters. To that end it would be helpful if when 'quoting' a post it was not a selective reference. Context is all.
Gotcha. But without the evangelists nothing changes.These are not minority groups in the accepted sense. They are very much evangelists for their sex/gender orientation and go to tremendous lengths and artifices to proclaim their 'rights' under human rights legislation.
They harass and badger influential people far beyond what might be considered proportionate to the levels of discrimination actually prevalent in general society. They could even be considered zealots for their cause. Then when they encounter what many would consider to be reasonable objections to what they demand, demands put in a firm but essentially polite way, they invoke the wrath of the legal system using committed and apparently unlimited funds to publicise their 'struggle'. All this on the back of poorly drafted legislation, cobbled together and stitched up using very coarse thread that leaves huge gaps between the stitches.
Unsurprisingly, this does their cause more damage than benefit and raises hackles that would otherwise draw a degree of sympathy. As a society we have come a long way but at the expense of lost time and well meant effort, not a little ridicule, and tragedy. It's about time it was realised that volume does not validate an argument.
I hope all the foregoing posts of mine are composed in moderate language and are taken as they are meant - not a critique of the movement or its objectives - but critical of the pathetic antics of their inept supporters. To that end it would be helpful if when 'quoting' a post it was not a selective reference. Context is all.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
JensenA said:
I agree with Thoridin. If I wanted a nice traditional Christmas cake making,liberally laced with brandy of course, and went to a local bakers and asked them to make one, and they said "Sorry, the owners are Muslim, and won't put alcohol in it". I would respect their views and go to another baker who would make it for me. I certainly wouldn't bother consulting a lawyer to see if their were any legal grounds for me to sue them.
But they won't put alcohol in for anyone. They are not discriminating against Christians, as they wouldn't put alcohol in a cake for a muslim who wasn't devout and liked alcohol. They are treating all their customers the same by saying none of you are getting alcohol in your cakes.As I said before, people keep taking the case in question where the owners acted illegally and then comparing it to things that aren't illegal, like refusing to ice cakes with Nazi symbols, cartoons and now alcohol. It's bloody stupid and it doesn't move the discussion forward.
Halb said:
I think if you run a public service then you shouldn't let your fairytale beliefs come into it, unless you're a tour guide around fairytale kingdom.
Not a public service - a private company. IMO they should have the right to refuse custom to anyone without giving reason as no-one can be compelled to enter into a private contract.Also should not be compelled to make anything promoting what is still a non legal act (almost like a cake promoting drugs in a small way due to both being illegal in N.Ireland)
(N.Ireland still has not made same sex legal although the rest of the uk has)
In fact southern Ireland has a vote over same sex marriage I think this week.
(N.Ireland still has not made same sex legal although the rest of the uk has)
In fact southern Ireland has a vote over same sex marriage I think this week.
WinstonWolf said:
What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?
Yes - was the shop objecting to the message they were asked to put on the cake, or were they objecting to the sexual orientation of their customer?Was this decided in the court and has the judge addressed this in the case and the judgement?
stupidbutkeen said:
Also should not be compelled to make anything promoting what is still a non legal act (almost like a cake promoting drugs in a small way due to both being illegal in N.Ireland)
(N.Ireland still has not made same sex legal although the rest of the uk has)
In fact southern Ireland has a vote over same sex marriage I think this week.
And what has a vote in the Irish Republic got to do with Northern Ireland from a legal point of view?(N.Ireland still has not made same sex legal although the rest of the uk has)
In fact southern Ireland has a vote over same sex marriage I think this week.
WinstonWolf said:
What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?
What if I, as a white person, went up to the bar to buy a round of drinks, and the barman refused to sell me them because my mates at the table were black and he didn't want to sell beer that was to be drunk black people. Surely that's still discrimination. I'm not sure the sexuality of the actual buyer of the cake is key.TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?
What if I, as a white person, went up to the bar to buy a round of drinks, and the barman refused to sell me them because my mates at the table were black and he didn't want to sell beer that was to be drunk black people. Surely that's still discrimination. I'm not sure the sexuality of the actual buyer is key.One set of religious bigots seem to get away with breaking the law, so these ones should be able to also.
Hypothetical bakers refusing service within the law, therefor these ones should be able to refuse contrary to the law.
Advocating changes to the law equates to breaking the law.
It's like a strawman convention in here. No wonder so many hands are clutching at them.
Have people actuall read the judgement? (link on page 6). Seems pretty open and shut to me.
From one of the defendants:
[16] When the 3rd Defendant gave the Plaintiff a leaflet stating the sizes and prices of cakes, she recalled him tell her that he was a member of a small voluntary group and wanted a cake with his own logo for an event. It was explained that if he brought the logo to the shop it would be scanned and put onto the cake. He returned on the 8th or 9th May, the order was taken and paid for. He provided an A4 sheet with a coloured picture of ‘Bert and Ernie’, the logo of QueerSpace and the headline caption “Support Gay Marriage.” The third Defendant said that she was a bit shocked to see the slogan, “Support Gay Marriage”. Her heart sank and she knew at the time she could not put that message on a cake and that she was not going to do the cake. She did not want to embarrass the Plaintiff nor did she want a confrontation in the shop. Having taken the order, she wanted to discuss with her husband and son how the issue could be best dealt with.
[20] The third Defendant explained that the image provided by the customer is scanned and individually put through the printer using inkjet, sized and placed on the cake. The lady who does the decoration is also Christian. She accepted that there is no limitation to the graphics in the company leaflet.
Hypothetical bakers refusing service within the law, therefor these ones should be able to refuse contrary to the law.
Advocating changes to the law equates to breaking the law.
It's like a strawman convention in here. No wonder so many hands are clutching at them.
Have people actuall read the judgement? (link on page 6). Seems pretty open and shut to me.
From one of the defendants:
[16] When the 3rd Defendant gave the Plaintiff a leaflet stating the sizes and prices of cakes, she recalled him tell her that he was a member of a small voluntary group and wanted a cake with his own logo for an event. It was explained that if he brought the logo to the shop it would be scanned and put onto the cake. He returned on the 8th or 9th May, the order was taken and paid for. He provided an A4 sheet with a coloured picture of ‘Bert and Ernie’, the logo of QueerSpace and the headline caption “Support Gay Marriage.” The third Defendant said that she was a bit shocked to see the slogan, “Support Gay Marriage”. Her heart sank and she knew at the time she could not put that message on a cake and that she was not going to do the cake. She did not want to embarrass the Plaintiff nor did she want a confrontation in the shop. Having taken the order, she wanted to discuss with her husband and son how the issue could be best dealt with.
[20] The third Defendant explained that the image provided by the customer is scanned and individually put through the printer using inkjet, sized and placed on the cake. The lady who does the decoration is also Christian. She accepted that there is no limitation to the graphics in the company leaflet.
Eric Mc said:
WinstonWolf said:
What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?
Yes - was the shop objecting to the message they were asked to put on the cake, or were they objecting to the sexual orientation of their customer?Was this decided in the court and has the judge addressed this in the case and the judgement?
Mr Scoffield QC on behalf of the Defendants makes the case that;
2.The Defendants did not have any knowledge and made no supposition of the sexual orientation of the Plaintiff.
3.The Defendants would have supplied the cake to the Plaintiff absent the message promoting same-sex marriage and would have refused a heterosexual or bisexual customer who requested a cake with the same message.
4.The order was refused because of the Defendants' religious belief that it would be sinful for them to promote a definition of same - sex marriage.
5.Discrimination must be against a person and not a political slogan or campaign.
Further on in the judgement;
I find, on the evidence before me, that the Defendants did have the knowledge or perception that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay. The reasons for this finding are that the Defendants must have known that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and/or associated with others who supported gay marriage as this was a cake for a special event the Plaintiff was attending; it was known to the 3rd Defendant that the Plaintiff was a member of a small volunteer group; he wanted his own graphics on the cake; those graphics included 'support gay marriage' together with a reference to 'QueerSpace' and the 3rd Defendant was aware of the ongoing debate on same-sex marriage. Furthermore,
although from her own evidence she said that she didn't think "perhaps we have to do it" [meaning complete the order], it is clear when she discussed the issue with her son on the Sunday, she mentioned that there may be litigation.
It is significant that the 2nd named Defendant would have been prepared to fulfil the order but, after discussing the issue with the 3rd Defendant and, 'wrestling with his heart and mind', he changed his view. During those discussions it must also have been abundantly clear that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and that in all the circumstances the 2nd Defendant must either consciously or unconsciously have had
the knowledge or perception that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay.
Additionally, I do not accept the Defendants submissions that what the Plaintiff wanted them to do would require them to promote and support gay
marriage which is contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs. Much as I acknowledge fully their religious belief is that gay marriage is sinful, they are in a business supplying services to all, however constituted.
Prior to the making of the 2006 Regulations the OFMDFM conducted a consultation as to the content of the proposed Regulations and, in response to the consultation said:-
" ...where businesses are open to the public on a commercial basis, they then have to accept the public as it is constituted ..."
My finding is that the Defendants cancelled this order as they oppose same sex marriage for the reason that they regard it as sinful and contrary to their genuinely held religious beliefs. Same sex marriage is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation.
Discrimination and unlawful discrimination are defined by Article 3 of the 1998 Order Article 3.
(1) discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;
and "discriminate" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstance relevant for the purposes of a provision of this Order, other than a provision to which paragraph (2A) applies, if —
(a) on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;
[59]The Defendants make the case that there was no reason for the Defendants to have any knowledge or perception of the Plaintiff's political opinion. The Defendants were and remained (until much later) unaware of the Plaintiff's political allegiance or views (or indeed, those with whom he associated). These factors played no part in the Defendant's actions.
[60] I do not accept this on the evidence before me for similar reasons that I do not accept this submission when considering the 2006 Regulations at Para [39], My reasons are that the Defendants must have known that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and /or he associated with others who supported gay marriage; this was a cake for a special event; the Plaintiff was a member of a small volunteer group; he wanted his own graphics on the cake; those graphics included a political statement relating to an ongoing debate on same sex marriage; the 3rd Defendant was fully aware of this ongoing debate as she had prayed about it in church and she is opposed to gay marriage.
In her evidence she said she didn't think that perhaps we have to do this [meaning complete the order] which is inconsistent with the evidence of her son when he discussed the issue with her on the Sunday and she raised the point that there may be litigation. He said whatever the law said we were not going to do it as we have Christian beliefs which are key.
...the Defendants also make the case that what the Plaintiff wanted them to do would require them to promote and support a campaign for a change in the law to enable same sex marriage. I have already made it clear I do not accept that was what the Defendants were required to do. They were contracted on a commercial basis to bake and ice a cake with entirely lawful graphics and to be paid for it. The Plaintiff was not seeking
support or endorsement. Whilst the graphics were contrary to their genuinely held religious beliefs, the provisions of the 1998 Order allow for no exceptions in these circumstances.
The crucial question in a case of any alleged discrimination is to ask why the claimant received less favourable treatment. Was it on grounds of religious belief and/ or political opinion? Or was it for some other reason. If it is on the grounds of religious belief and/ political opinion, direct discrimination is established. The reason why the discriminator acted on those grounds is irrelevant.
Have the Defendants directly discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of religious belief and/ or political opinion contrary to Article 3(2) of the 1998 Order?
I find that they have.
Applying the reasoning in Gill v NICEM, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants disagreed with the religious belief and political opinion held by the Plaintiff with regard to a change in the law to permit gay marriage and, accordingly, by their refusal to provide the services sought, treated the Plaintiff less favourably and contrary to the law. If the Plaintiff had chosen graphics which said "support heterosexual marriage" or "support marriage" or if a heterosexual had ordered a cake with graphics "support heterosexual marriage" I am satisfied that the Defendants would have completed the order and would have had every right to do so. It is for the reason that the Defendants objected to the word 'gay' as they are totally opposed to same-sex marriage which they regard as sinful that they refused the order.
If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words "support heterosexual 38 marriage" the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all.
The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.
Edited by djstevec on Thursday 21st May 10:46
Johnnytheboy said:
As - I believe - gay marriage is still illegal in NI, could one now request a message advocating any lawbreaking, and not be refused?
The message didn't advocate law breaking, it advocated a change in the law. Since when has campaigning for a change in the law been an offence?djstevec said:
(snip)
Thanks for posting that. 
Key point here:
judgement said:
The crucial question in a case of any alleged discrimination is to ask why the claimant received less favourable treatment. Was it on grounds of religious belief and/ or political opinion? Or was it for some other reason. If it is on the grounds of religious belief and/ political opinion, direct discrimination is established. The reason why the discriminator acted on those grounds is irrelevant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff