Christian Bakers Win "Gay Cake" Supreme Court appeal

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date
A business should not be able to refuse anything on discriminatory grounds. How would you feel if you were gay and nobody would do business with you?


A good point, but I think if you want to do business in the UK then you should have to meet standards and one of those standards should be that you do not discriminate in this way.

I can't see them coming out of this particularly well mind. Obviously they have supporters, but I think it's done more damage to them than anything else. Time will tell.
 


No, your issue is you see the religious thing as the front and centre of your argument. Lets take it a step back to make it easier for you.

Asda have a upload your photograph onto a cake service (and I know this because I've used it many times) where you go to a machine and upload what you want onto the cake. This then goes to the bakery bit where it is checked it meets Asda guidelines (no copyrighted or inappropriate images etc). If your request does not meet Asda's guidelines they refuse to make it.

So I use the machine the request a cake showing a Photoshopped Maddie McCann in a suitcase. It goes to the back where its refused because the baker thinks its in bad taste. I'm anonymous to the baker, my image is perfectly legal but refused. Asda will happily let me continue shopping and buy another cake, but , and without discrimination, won't action my original request because it's against there guidelines.
but this is why we have laws, otherwise it become a subjective opinion of one person or another. What one person thinks is offensive, someone else doesn't. Just stick to the law.

I can't see them coming out of this particularly well mind. Obviously they have supporters, but I think it's done more damage to them than anything else. Time will tell.
Hopefully. I always find it ironic how unchristian christians often are.
 
There is a difference, sexuality is a protected attribute under law, support Hitler isn't.

No business should be allowed to discriminate against any of the protected attributes. What message does it send to gay people if businesses won't do business with them?

What if the cake said 'Happy Wedding Dave & Lesley' - would the cake shop be ok to ask if Lesley was a man or a woman before the baked it?


It falls under the definition of indirect discrimination as it could easily be argued only gay people would be likely to request that.


For any reason? so if I open a shop, you'd be happy if I refused to serve black people - is that the standard you'd accept in 2018???
It wasn't indirect discrimination or any other discrimination though, otherwise the bakers wouldn't have won the case. They meant no discrimination to the gay customer they disagreed with his politics, that's all. If the gay fella had any respect for the bakers faith he'd have said fair enough I'll go elsewhere. He wanted his pound of flesh though which seems to be the way these days.
 
It wasn't indirect discrimination or any other discrimination thought, otherwise the bakers wouldn't have won the case. They meant no discrimination to the gay customer they disagreed with his politics, that's all. If the gay fella had any respect for the bakers faith he'd have said fair enough I'll go elsewhere. He wanted his pound of flesh though which seems to be the way these days.
It is the exact definition of indirect discrimination in law. That being you create a situation (in this case not making the cake) that is highly likely to only affect a group of people (in this case gay people).

I'm very surprised they won to be honest, I certainly couldn't do anything similar at work. When we arrange work nights out we have to ensure that they do not indirectly discriminate, e.g. no nights at a a strip club.

You've also got to consider that the bakery are openly stating the opposition to his right to marry, and I would guess they are opposed to his sexuality. That's just not acceptable in 2018.

Gay people should be allowed to live without prejudice.
 
It is the exact definition of indirect discrimination in law. That being you create a situation (in this case not making the cake) that is highly likely to only affect a group of people (in this case gay people).

I'm very surprised they won to be honest, I certainly couldn't do anything similar at work. When we arrange work nights out we have to ensure that they do not indirectly discriminate, e.g. no nights at a a strip club.

You've also got to consider that the bakery are openly stating the opposition to his right to marry, and I would guess they are opposed to his sexuality. That's just not acceptable in 2018.

Gay people should be allowed to live without prejudice.

You have missed the point. In their country gay marriage is illegal. Why should they support an illegal message?
 
Hopefully. I always find it ironic how unchristian christians often are.
Whilst I agree with your general point I think this is more a case of how intolerant someone asking for tolerance is.

He , the lad who describes himself as a gay activist) has deliberately gone out of his way to court this controversy.

It's nowt to do with a cake. It's him trying to force someone to do something he knew they would find offensive.
 
It is the exact definition of indirect discrimination in law. That being you create a situation (in this case not making the cake) that is highly likely to only affect a group of people (in this case gay people).

I'm very surprised they won to be honest, I certainly couldn't do anything similar at work. When we arrange work nights out we have to ensure that they do not indirectly discriminate, e.g. no nights at a a strip club.

You've also got to consider that the bakery are openly stating the opposition to his right to marry, and I would guess they are opposed to his sexuality. That's just not acceptable in 2018.

Gay people should be allowed to live without prejudice.
Lots of guesswork there but fortunately courts don't do guesswork. You keep banging the same drum but there was no prejudice. Not against people anyway, just their political stance.
 
but this is why we have laws, otherwise it become a subjective opinion of one person or another. What one person thinks is offensive, someone else doesn't. Just stick to the law.

Which they did - hence the ruling in court yesterday.
 
A business should not be able to refuse anything on discriminatory grounds. How would you feel if you were gay and nobody would do business with you?


A good point, but I think if you want to do business in the UK then you should have to meet standards and one of those standards should be that you do not discriminate in this way.
They didn't refuse to do Buisness with them. They refused to make them an extraordinaryly niche product with a political message on it the bakers didn't agree with. They didn't refuse them to bake any cake or to sell them a roll or doughnut or what have you. Just one incredibly specific thing. And it is the existence of the laws that entitle Christians to refuse to make a specific pro homosexuality decorated cake that also allows gay bakers to refuse to make a homophobically messaged cake.

The law needs to protect everyone under these things or it will eventually protect no-one.

I think both are right in this, i think it is one of these cases where both are winners and losers.
"But in another, more accurate way, Barney is the winner"
 
Last edited:

Back
Top