Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That point has been made an answered a dozen times on this thread. They discriminated by refusing to supply goods to back a gay cause, giving the reason not that they didn't bake cakes for causes, but they didn't bake cakes for causes they disagreed with.
No different from a printer refusing to print leaflets for a black event, regardless of the colour of the person doing the ordering. You shouldn't be able to do that.
What is it about it that you don't get?
The point I was also making was the cause is for the law to change. The bakery's stance was in accordance with the law as it currently stands.No different from a printer refusing to print leaflets for a black event, regardless of the colour of the person doing the ordering. You shouldn't be able to do that.
What is it about it that you don't get?
Are we all now supposed to be forced to support causes we don't agree with?
Is upholding the law now an illegal stance?
No one is forced to support causes they don't agree with. Individuals can think what they like. Businesses can't discriminate against gay causes, black causes etc., it they'd happily supply their product for straight causes or white causes.
How can that not be the right decision?
Eric Mc said:
I just don't think a person who does not agree with a certain legal issue should be forced to assist someone who holds a different view.
Agreed. A person who hates blacks does not need to go rattling tins for charity to collect money for sickle cell anaemia. Even if they often rattle tins for other charities. But if their business supplies the tins, then they have to supply them to black charities.And that's a good thing.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Eric Mc said:
I fully support Gay Marriage. I was delighted when the people of the Irish Republic voted to allow it.
What I am against is forcing others to agree with me - or to bake a cake saying they should agree with me.
I to have no wish to force people to agree with me. People are free to loathe gays if they wish to. We don't have thought crime in the UK. But I'm against people who run a business serving the public using their own beliefs to discriminate against gays, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, and other groups that have protection in law.What I am against is forcing others to agree with me - or to bake a cake saying they should agree with me.
If you allow that, you are allowing venues to refuse to host a gay marriage party, allowing taxi firms to refuse to take people to the party, allowing caterers to refuse to prepare food for the party.
It's not on. If you want to hate gays, blacks, or whatever, go ahead, knock yourselves out. But don't open a shop, or a B&B etc. and expect to be able to bring that hatred into your dealings with the public.
This isn't rocket science. I really don't see how any right thinking individual can see it any other way.
While I agree with the decision of the court in this case, hypothetically at what point would the bakers have legitimately been able to refuse to make the cake? Is the litmus test that the message would have had to have been illegal in itself? e.g. if they were asked to bake an "I hate Islam" cake, as offensive as it may be, they would still not be allowed to refuse on the grounds they disagreed with the message, but if asked to bake one saying "Kill all Muslims" they could legitimately refuse?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed. A person who hates blacks does not need to go rattling tins for charity to collect money for sickle cell anaemia. Even if they often rattle tins for other charities. But if their business supplies the tins, then they have to supply them to black charities.
You analogy about 'hating blacks' appears to be designed to deliberately portray a position that isn't relevant to the case.The business in question was happy to serve these people just as they would with anyone else. That's quite correct.
The business did not want to produce an item which contradicted with their beliefs, just as they would not have produced an item if the request had been by anyone else. That's entirely consistent, not discriminatory.
The business have to have some rights, as well as the customers. If the approach taken by the business is not supported by their customers they will soon go gout of business.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And that's a good thing.
I'm not so sure.If someone went into their shop and requested a cake with offensive anti-black slogans or similar, this bakery would no doubt have refused that too.
Derek Smith said:
Eric Mc said:
Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?
It is not, Eric. The courts have explained why they feel it isn't and they are the arbiters, not you.Mario149 said:
While I agree with the decision of the court in this case, hypothetically at what point would the bakers have legitimately been able to refuse to make the cake? Is the litmus test that the message would have had to have been illegal in itself? e.g. if they were asked to bake an "I hate Islam" cake, as offensive as it may be, they would still not be allowed to refuse on the grounds they disagreed with the message, but if asked to bake one saying "Kill all Muslims" they could legitimately refuse?
That is a key point.As I keep saying - and it is wilfully being ignored by posters here because they (as usual) don't understand the subtle differences between the law in England and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Gay marriage is actually ILLEGAL in Northern Ireland at the moment. The slogan was promoting something that was NOT legal. The shop was prosecuted because they were in agreement with the law on Northern Ireland as it currently stands.
Eric Mc said:
Mario149 said:
While I agree with the decision of the court in this case, hypothetically at what point would the bakers have legitimately been able to refuse to make the cake? Is the litmus test that the message would have had to have been illegal in itself? e.g. if they were asked to bake an "I hate Islam" cake, as offensive as it may be, they would still not be allowed to refuse on the grounds they disagreed with the message, but if asked to bake one saying "Kill all Muslims" they could legitimately refuse?
That is a key point.As I keep saying - and it is wilfully being ignored by posters here because they (as usual) don't understand the subtle differences between the law in England and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Gay marriage is actually ILLEGAL in Northern Ireland at the moment. The slogan was promoting something that was NOT legal. The shop was prosecuted because they were in agreement with the law on Northern Ireland as it currently stands.
It is a lot more complex than some people here think.
I think the law regarding Gay Marriage in Northern Ireland is wrong and should be changed.
I just think that this particular attempt at highlighting the issue was very unfair and vindictive.
It has a stink of "entrapment" about it and I really hate that technique - in whatever context it is used, whether by the authorities, journalists or people trying to promote a cause.
I think the law regarding Gay Marriage in Northern Ireland is wrong and should be changed.
I just think that this particular attempt at highlighting the issue was very unfair and vindictive.
It has a stink of "entrapment" about it and I really hate that technique - in whatever context it is used, whether by the authorities, journalists or people trying to promote a cause.
sidicks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed. A person who hates blacks does not need to go rattling tins for charity to collect money for sickle cell anaemia. Even if they often rattle tins for other charities. But if their business supplies the tins, then they have to supply them to black charities.
You analogy about 'hating blacks' appears to be designed to deliberately portray a position that isn't relevant to the case.Most people would accept that a business cannot refuse to sell promotional products promoting a black cause if they would happily supply them for a white cause. But swap it for gay and straight, and it doesn't seem to be as important to many people.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's entirely relevant. I'm just using a more extreme example of the same principle to demonstrate how wrong it is.
Most people would accept that a business cannot refuse to sell promotional products promoting a black cause if they would happily supply them for a white cause. But swap it for gay and straight, and it doesn't seem to be as important to many people.
Why do the rights of one group outweigh the rights of another?Most people would accept that a business cannot refuse to sell promotional products promoting a black cause if they would happily supply them for a white cause. But swap it for gay and straight, and it doesn't seem to be as important to many people.
The judge reached the following conclusions:
1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff