I'm amazed at the number of people who just can't understand how equality legislation works and think this case now means 'that a business has to do exactly what the customer wants regardless of what the business owner wants' and this is rubbish.
It does not mean that. The outcome means that the bakers discriminated unlawfully against someone who wanted to use their service. The bakers broke the law - it really isn't difficult, surely?
Yes, it's disingenuous, IMO.
They're just looking for wiggle room to make it OK to approve of discrimination and to turn the victims of it into the victimizers.
I think an important point needs to be understood. The bakery did NOT refuse to bake a cake for a customer because the customer was gay. They refused to bake a cake which displayed a political message which went against their views. If a gay person had ordered a standard birthday cake I'm sure they'd have happily baked it. If not that certainly would be discrimination, but thats not the case here.
On the other hand if a straight customer had ordered a cake displaying a support gay marriage message they would have refused them also. Its the cake they have the problem with not the customer so its not discrimination imo. It would be like a Muslim baker who was anti-alcohol refusing to bake a cake containing rum extract, which I'm sure he'd be within his rights to do.
I think an important point needs to be understood. The bakery did NOT refuse to bake a cake for a customer because the customer was gay. They refused to bake a cake which displayed a political message which went against their views. If a gay person had ordered a standard birthday cake I'm sure they'd have happily baked it. If not that certainly would be discrimination, but thats not the case here.
On the other hand if a straight customer had ordered a cake displaying a support gay marriage message they would have refused them also. Its the cake they have the problem with not the customer so its not discrimination imo. It would be like a Muslim baker who was anti-alcohol refusing to bake a cake containing rum extract, which I'm sure he'd be within his rights to do.
I think an important point needs to be understood. The bakery did NOT refuse to bake a cake for a customer because the customer was gay. They refused to bake a cake which displayed a political message which went against their views. If a gay person had ordered a standard birthday cake I'm sure they'd have happily baked it. If not that certainly would be discrimination, but thats not the case here.
On the other hand if a straight customer had ordered a cake displaying a support gay marriage message they would have refused them also. Its the cake they have the problem with not the customer so its not discrimination imo. It would be like a Muslim baker who was anti-alcohol refusing to bake a cake containing rum extract, which I'm sure he'd be within his rights to do.
It would be like a Muslim baker who was anti-alcohol refusing to bake a cake containing rum extract, which I'm sure he'd be within his rights to do.
That's an extremely poor example. There's no law which forces Muslim bakers to use alcohol as an ingredient.
Any baker can refuse to make cakes containing raisins, nuts, alcohol or any other ingredient. It only becomes discrimination when they refuse to provide something to one group that they would happily provide to other groups.
It may be well put but it's wrong. Poster hasn't read or doesn't understand the legislation and/or judgement.
You're right. I had not read the judgment. I've now briefly skimmed. Can someone please clarify for me. If a straight customer with no connections to the gay community orders a support gay marriage cake then the bakery has a right to refuse. If a gay customer orders exactly the same cake the bakery are legally obliged to make it for them. Is that correct? If so does it seem justified for the law to be different for people of different sexuality?
I prefer the plaintiff’s submission that same-sex marriage is or should be regarded as a union between persons having a sexual orientation and that if a person refused to provide a service on that ground then they were discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation.
I was just wondering, if the bakery said that they have no problem with civil partnerships but just didn't agree with gay marriage because they believe marriage should only be for a woman and a man, would it still be discrimination?
If this were the case, it would imply that they would be willing to bake a cake for a gay union but just not one in relation to gay marriage so it wouldn't be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
You're right. I had not read the judgment. I've now briefly skimmed. Can someone please clarify for me. If a straight customer with no connections to the gay community orders a support gay marriage cake then the bakery has a right to refuse.
If a gay customer orders exactly the same cake the bakery are legally obliged to make it for them. Is that correct? If so does it seem justified for the law to be different for people of different sexuality?
Can you see that there are laws and that if the reason to refuse to do something does not break any law, then you can do it, but if it breaks a law you can't?
I can, yes. However in this case it wasn't clear that a law had been broken and this needed to be tested and established in court. Even with this having been done, it's still reasonable to question the interpretation of the law.
Yes! That is the common sense that you are deliberately avoiding just to make it all about gay people getting special rights that are the same as many others.
Whoa there! I'm not deliberately avoiding anything nor making it all about gay people getting special rights. This isn't one of those times when someone attempts to conflate being allowed to marry as "special treatment" or "extra rights". I do think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. However, in this case the fact that it is legal to refuse a cake saying "ban fox hunting" but illegal to refuse one saying "support gay marriage" makes it unequal, and I say that as someone who opposes fox hunting and supports gay marriage, but I'm not going to agree with legislation that protects a view just because it's my view.
That's an extremely poor example. There's no law which forces Muslim bakers to use alcohol as an ingredient.
Any baker can refuse to make cakes containing raisins, nuts, alcohol or any other ingredient. It only becomes discrimination when they refuse to provide something to one group that they would happily provide to other groups.
My understanding is this that the bakery would have refused to supply a support gay marriage cake to any customer or group whether they were gay, straight, black, white, Christian or Muslim. Do you not agree this is the case?
I was just wondering, if the bakery said that they have no problem with civil partnerships but just didn't agree with gay marriage because they believe marriage should only be for a woman and a man, would it still be discrimination?
If this were the case, it would imply that they would be willing to bake a cake for a gay union but just not one in relation to gay marriage so it wouldn't be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
We have no idea if they support civil partnership and it's irrelevant, surely.
That isn't what the case is about. Theirs or anyone elses religious beliefs do not supercede the law.
Yes it would be discrimination, as that's exactly what they did.
I wonder how a free speech/expression cake with jesus and mo on it would fare?
Any private business could refuse to depict Mohammed. Particularly as any visual depiction of Mohammed could lead to violence. The same goes for a negative depiction of Jesus.
Refusal to bake a cake with a positive image of Jesus for Christian customers, however, would be discrimination.
Why? You made the statement. I thought I was reasonable to ask why you thought that to be the case, considering you didn't provide any context that would have enabled me to do so.
I see someone else has done so without making a fuss, so thanks for nothing.
a) and b) are both direct discrimination as I understand it. c) which I did not mention, is indirect discrimination.
Judge left it open to being a) and/or b) i.e. "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" so as I said earlier, whether or not the bakery knew the customer was gay doesn't matter, in this case.
b (iii) "which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim;" might therefore be a possible defence in this case and it will be interesting to see when the full judgement is published what if anything the judge has to say about that.
What I don't yet fully understand is the interplay between the 2006 regulations and the 1998 order, the latter I have not read, yet. How many flipping laws did the bakery break?
I know you didn't mention c) so I didn't either! a) is direct, b) and c) are both definitions of indirect, applicable according to whether in employment or goods and services.
The judge didn't make a finding of indirect but did say that had she done so, she would have found that it wasn't justified. So there would have been no get-out via legitimate aim.
No, because it doesn't. The law only covers certain characteristics - but everyone has those characteristics and everyone gets the same protection for them. So I am protected if someone discriminates against my sexuality, just as you are also protected - whatever your sexuality is. I am not protected if I want a cake that is nothing to do with the protected characteristics - and neither are you. There is no special treatment for anyone, just the characteristics that are protected and which we all have.
Cake A: "Support this movement"
Cake B: "Support this LGBT movement"
Cake A can be refused, cake B cannot.
While it is right and fair to protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc, I don't think it's fair to protect one opinion above another.
Cake A: "Support this movement"
Cake B: "Support this LGBT movement"
Cake A can be refused, cake B cannot.
While it is right and fair to protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc, I don't think it's fair to protect one opinion above another.
Only if they are protected characteristics. Your example of fox hunting and same sex marriage are incomparable.
I also think it's very fair to protect anyone from the bewildering vagaries of any religious belief.
NI is a virtual theocracy and this case is a splendid example of the law, not religion, in action.
You're right. I had not read the judgment. I've now briefly skimmed. Can someone please clarify for me. If a straight customer with no connections to the gay community orders a support gay marriage cake then the bakery has a right to refuse. If a gay customer orders exactly the same cake the bakery are legally obliged to make it for them. Is that correct? If so does it seem justified for the law to be different for people of different sexuality?
I don't think that was tested so can't be sure. The 2006 regulations (section 3 that defines discrimination) seem to say that the customer and/or the group he supports (Queerspace and gay people) must be of the same sexuality, in which case a non-gay customer wouldn't have won on those grounds.
But even if I'm right about the above (need to have another read of S. 3) , I think the customer could still have got the bakers under the 1998 order, political or religious discrimination. Not in England though, as the 1998 order is a N.I. thing.
I was just wondering, if the bakery said that they have no problem with civil partnerships but just didn't agree with gay marriage because they believe marriage should only be for a woman and a man, would it still be discrimination?
If this were the case, it would imply that they would be willing to bake a cake for a gay union but just not one in relation to gay marriage so it wouldn't be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Well it would still be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but specifically in the case of marriage (becasue they believe that marriage should be exclusively hetrosexual).
The fact that they wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions is irrelevant really.
Comments
They're just looking for wiggle room to make it OK to approve of discrimination and to turn the victims of it into the victimizers.
You may find this helpful
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Individuals/ReligiousDiscrimShortGuide2010.pdf
On the other hand if a straight customer had ordered a cake displaying a support gay marriage message they would have refused them also. Its the cake they have the problem with not the customer so its not discrimination imo. It would be like a Muslim baker who was anti-alcohol refusing to bake a cake containing rum extract, which I'm sure he'd be within his rights to do.
Have you read the judgement?
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Court%20Delivers%20Judgment%20in%20Ashers%20Bakery%20Case/j_j_Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20Ashers%20Bakery.htm
What has alcohol and Muslims got to do with anything?
If anyone wants religion to suddenly be able to usurp the law, that would apply to all religions including Islam.
Exactly - well put .Pesky cakist bakers .
It may be well put but it's wrong. Poster hasn't read or doesn't understand the legislation and/or judgement.
Any baker can refuse to make cakes containing raisins, nuts, alcohol or any other ingredient. It only becomes discrimination when they refuse to provide something to one group that they would happily provide to other groups.
You're right. I had not read the judgment. I've now briefly skimmed. Can someone please clarify for me. If a straight customer with no connections to the gay community orders a support gay marriage cake then the bakery has a right to refuse. If a gay customer orders exactly the same cake the bakery are legally obliged to make it for them. Is that correct? If so does it seem justified for the law to be different for people of different sexuality?
I was just wondering, if the bakery said that they have no problem with civil partnerships but just didn't agree with gay marriage because they believe marriage should only be for a woman and a man, would it still be discrimination?
If this were the case, it would imply that they would be willing to bake a cake for a gay union but just not one in relation to gay marriage so it wouldn't be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
No, of course not. The law applies equally.
Whoa there! I'm not deliberately avoiding anything nor making it all about gay people getting special rights. This isn't one of those times when someone attempts to conflate being allowed to marry as "special treatment" or "extra rights". I do think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. However, in this case the fact that it is legal to refuse a cake saying "ban fox hunting" but illegal to refuse one saying "support gay marriage" makes it unequal, and I say that as someone who opposes fox hunting and supports gay marriage, but I'm not going to agree with legislation that protects a view just because it's my view.
My understanding is this that the bakery would have refused to supply a support gay marriage cake to any customer or group whether they were gay, straight, black, white, Christian or Muslim. Do you not agree this is the case?
We have no idea if they support civil partnership and it's irrelevant, surely.
That isn't what the case is about. Theirs or anyone elses religious beliefs do not supercede the law.
Yes it would be discrimination, as that's exactly what they did.
Refusal to bake a cake with a positive image of Jesus for Christian customers, however, would be discrimination.
I would think each case would be judged on what is reasonable.
Still don't think all political views are protected.
Of course I could be wrong!
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Individuals/ReligiousDiscrimShortGuide2010.pdf
Each case is judged by the Law.
Why? You made the statement. I thought I was reasonable to ask why you thought that to be the case, considering you didn't provide any context that would have enabled me to do so.
I see someone else has done so without making a fuss, so thanks for nothing.
I know you didn't mention c) so I didn't either! a) is direct, b) and c) are both definitions of indirect, applicable according to whether in employment or goods and services.
The judge didn't make a finding of indirect but did say that had she done so, she would have found that it wasn't justified. So there would have been no get-out via legitimate aim.
Cake A: "Support this movement"
Cake B: "Support this LGBT movement"
Cake A can be refused, cake B cannot.
While it is right and fair to protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc, I don't think it's fair to protect one opinion above another.
Only if they are protected characteristics. Your example of fox hunting and same sex marriage are incomparable.
I also think it's very fair to protect anyone from the bewildering vagaries of any religious belief.
NI is a virtual theocracy and this case is a splendid example of the law, not religion, in action.
I don't think that was tested so can't be sure. The 2006 regulations (section 3 that defines discrimination) seem to say that the customer and/or the group he supports (Queerspace and gay people) must be of the same sexuality, in which case a non-gay customer wouldn't have won on those grounds.
But even if I'm right about the above (need to have another read of S. 3) , I think the customer could still have got the bakers under the 1998 order, political or religious discrimination. Not in England though, as the 1998 order is a N.I. thing.
Which means a satanist can stroll in and order his cake with the protection of the law:D It's a religion, after all.
Well it would still be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but specifically in the case of marriage (becasue they believe that marriage should be exclusively hetrosexual).
The fact that they wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals having civil unions is irrelevant really.
That would depend on the message, wouldn't it.:D