Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[Eric Mc]

They are discriminating against non-Christians who want to shop.

Discrimination is not only about treating people differently. It's about stopping people from exercising their rights based on the views of those who are blocking those rights.

Therefore you can discrminate against everybody.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Lots of people are talking about political positions, promotion of opinions and completely sidestepping the crux of the case. And that is the bakery owners are bible thumping Ulster Prods who just don't like gays. Which is their right. And they thought they could carry on that mindset into their business in their dealings with the public, which the courts have said that is not their right. And I'm glad about that.

[ewenm]

Eric Mc said:

They are discriminating against non-Christians who want to shop.

Discrimination is not only about treating people differently. It's about stopping people from exercising their rights based on the views of those who are blocking those rights.

Therefore you can discrminate against everybody.

Do you have a right to shop?

[JonRB]

Eric Mc said:

There is a local toy shop to me that sells a nice range of models. Unfortunately, I can only ever get to it on Sunday - but they refuse to open on Sundays for religious reasons. Should I sue them for inconveniencing me?

Of course not - there is no law compelling them to open on a Sunday. Quite the contrary in fact - there are Sunday Trading laws that dictate when they cannot open and they would be breaking the law if they opened outside of those times for your convenience.

[Eric Mc]

They are making decisions on their business doing based on religious beliefs which are probably not in accordance with the views of a large section of the community. Indeed, probably 80% of the community would not agree with their stance on not opening on a Sunday.

Personally, I have no real problem with a shop not opening on a Sunday.

[JonRB]

Eric Mc said:

They are making decisions on their business doing based on religious beliefs which are probably not in accordance with the views of a large section of the community. Indeed, probably 80% of the community would not agree with their stance on not opening on a Sunday.

Personally, I have no real problem with a shop not opening on a Sunday.

You know right well that a business setting their opening hours, and a business refusing to do business with someone based on the prejudices of the directors, are two completely different kettles of fish.

[Eric Mc]

Until the moment someone decides to make a legal case of it.

[vetrof]

Eric Mc said:

There is a local toy shop to me that sells a nice range of models. Unfortunately, I can only ever get to it on Sunday - but they refuse to open on Sundays for religious reasons. Should I sue them for inconveniencing me?
I don't hold the same religious views they do and it seems wrong that refuse me the "right" to shop when it suits me.

Another ridiculous analogy Eric.

The shop are treating everybody the same, unless there's a secret knock christians use to gain sunday access.
If the bakery had a blanket no political slogans policy, then I suspect they would be OK. They agreed to make the cake. Their flyer even states they will add any design of the customers choice.

[Eric Mc]

Does that mean the shop should have been obliged to put "I hate gays" on the cake if asked?

The judgement seems to be saying that they are obliged by law to put whatever the customer demands on their cakes. Or does the law recognise that some slogans may be offensive. If it does, how does it define what can aor cannot go on a cake?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

Does that mean the shop should have been obliged to put "I hate gays" on the cake if asked?

Oh ffs! Of course not. It's a different thing. They wouldn't make a can saying "I hate whatever" for anyone!

But a gay owned cake shop would be obliged to make a cake saying "vote against gay marriage" which was ordered by a bunch of bible bashing prods.

Can you see the difference?

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Eric Mc said:

Does that mean the shop should have been obliged to put "I hate gays" on the cake if asked?

Oh ffs! Of course not. It's a different thing. They wouldn't make a can saying "I hate whatever" for anyone!

How do you know?

(And no need for the swearing).

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

Does that mean the shop should have been obliged to put "I hate gays" on the cake if asked?

The judgement seems to be saying that they are obliged by law to put whatever the customer demands on their cakes. Or does the law recognise that some slogans may be offensive. If it does, how does it define what can or cannot go on a cake?

Again Eric - from the judgement,

"They were contracted on a commercial basis to bake and ice a cake with entirely lawful graphics and to be paid for it."

If the graphics or slogan contravene other laws then there is no obligation to make that product. Producing a cake saying "I hate gays" could be considered unlawful under Hate Speech laws.

from Wiki page - Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom -
Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

[Mr_B]

How hard was it to turn down their business by simply quoting a silly price or a 5 week wait for the cake ? People like this that have to make a legal case and stupid point are idiots. Again, if you are incapable of dealing with the public, don't open a shop.

[Eric Mc]

djstevec said:

Again Eric - from the judgement,

"They were contracted on a commercial basis to bake and ice a cake with entirely lawful graphics and to be paid for it."

If the graphics of slogan contravene other laws then there is no obligation to make that product. Producing a cake saying "I hate gays" could be considered unlawful under Hate Speech laws.

from Wiki page - Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom -
Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

I think if they had said "no" up front, there would have been no case.

It seems to me the fact that they initially agreed to bake the cake and then changed their mind is what set the case in motion and undermined their defence.

[Eric Mc]

Mr_B said:

How hard was it to turn down their business by simply quoting a silly price or a 5 week wait for the cake ? People like this that have to make a legal case and stupid point are idiots. Again, if you are incapable of dealing with the public, don't open a shop.

I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.

[vetrof]

Eric Mc said:

I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.

I find it very difficult to admire bigots, whether standing up for their principals or not.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Eric Mc said:

Does that mean the shop should have been obliged to put "I hate gays" on the cake if asked?

Oh ffs! Of course not. It's a different thing. They wouldn't make a can saying "I hate whatever" for anyone!

How do you know?

(And no need for the swearing).

Well for a start they'd probably be guilty of an offence, producing cakes, t shirts or whatever saying "I hate x". X being any particular group. Hate crime, promoting disharmony and all that.

So it's a completely daft scenario you've dreamt up!

[Bill]

Eric Mc said:

I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.

I'd admire them if they'd said "I might not agree with your message, but you have every right to have it put on a cake".

[Eric Mc]

Bill said:

I'd admire them if they'd said "I might not agree with your message, but you have every right to have it put on a cake".

Or, "and we know another bakery who will be more than happy to oblige".

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

djstevec said:

Again Eric - from the judgement,

"They were contracted on a commercial basis to bake and ice a cake with entirely lawful graphics and to be paid for it."

If the graphics of slogan contravene other laws then there is no obligation to make that product. Producing a cake saying "I hate gays" could be considered unlawful under Hate Speech laws.

from Wiki page - Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom -
Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

I think if they had said "no" up front, there would have been no case.

It seems to me the fact that they initially agreed to bake the cake and then changed their mind is what set the case in motion and undermined their defence.

If they had said no initially and used the same reason they stated after considering it for a few days, I cannot see how the verdict would have been any different....they would still have been treating Mr Lee less favorably, based solely on their religious beliefs.