Topic: No blacks, no Irish, no dogs

[Gerry Attrick]

As I said earlier they're archaic but hard to side against them in this particular instance. If somebody came into my shop wanting a 'Margaret Thatcher was the best PM ever seen' cake I'd like to have the right to tell them very impolitely where the door is.

[Iska]

OK so can a pro apartheid South African agree to serve black people as long as they are seated in a different section?

No, that would be discrimination.

[killer-heels]

OK so can a pro apartheid South African agree to serve black people as long as they are seated in a different section?

No because that is discrimination against an individual.

[TepidT2O]

OK so can a pro apartheid South African agree to serve black people as long as they are seated in a different section?

No, but they can resume to make a banner saying ‘black rule is right’ provided they do so on the grounds they don’t agree with the message and not the colour of the person asking them to make the banner

[Iska]

As I said earlier they're archaic but hard to side against them in this particular instance. If somebody came into my shop wanting a 'Margaret Thatcher was the best PM ever seen' cake I'd like to have the right to tell them very impolitely where the door is.

Also, they’ve been totally set up here, by the looks of it.  The guy appears to have thought up something nonsensical, purely so they would refuse and he could try to get them prosecuted and they’ve been dragged through the courts for years on the back of it.  That’s cruel, no matter what you think of their beliefs.  They didn’t pick this fight.

[Millie]

Also, they’ve been totally set up here, by the looks of it.  The guy appears to have thought up something nonsensical, purely so they would refuse and he could try to get them prosecuted and they’ve been dragged through the courts for years on the back of it.  That’s cruel, no matter what you think of their beliefs.  They didn’t pick this fight.

You know this how?

[Kenny's Jacket]

No because that is discrimination against an individual.

No, that would be discrimination.

Of course its discrimination, to normal thinking people, but so is thinking that two blokes aren't allowed to marry each other.

If you stop the pro apartheid guy carrying out segregation whilst hes still happy to serve everyone you are infringing on his political beliefs as much as  you are infringing on the religious beliefs of these christians

[Iska]

Of course its discrimination, to normal thinking people, but so is thinking that two blokes aren't allowed to marry each other.

If you stop the pro apartheid guy carrying out segregation whilst hes still happy to serve everyone you are infringing on his political beliefs as much as  you are infringing on the religious beliefs of these christians

It’s not discrimination to think something though.  The law is only concerned with doing.  You’re not allowed to do something that discriminates, but you are allowed to think whatever you like.  Your apartheid guy is discriminating by treating people differently.

[Iska]

You know this how?

I might be wrong, but I struggle to see how else this comes about?  As others have noted, getting a cake with a political slogan is pretty odd.

[Kenny's Jacket]

No, but they can resume to make a banner saying ‘black rule is right’ provided they do so on the grounds they don’t agree with the message and not the colour of the person asking them to make the banner

Hes a restaurant owner, he doesnt make banners, he provides a table chair and food which hes happy to do for the black customer, with a caveat. Same as the bakers were happy to provide a cake to the gay man, with a caveat.

Or is the point here on the ruling solely to do with promoting a message ? (if so I still think the restaurant example fits)

If thats is the case do you think the ruling would have been different in a country that has legalised gay marriage?

[killer-heels]

Of course its discrimination, to normal thinking people, but so is thinking that two blokes aren't allowed to marry each other.

If you stop the pro apartheid guy carrying out segregation whilst hes still happy to serve everyone you are infringing on his political beliefs as much as  you are infringing on the religious beliefs of these christians

Ignoring what the people truly believe and are, they agreed to serve the person but disagreed with the message. They were found not to be discriminating against the person but exercising their rights over the messaging.

If they refused to make a cake for the guy because he is gay then that would be discrimination. If they also said stuff like they can only have pink cakes because they are gay then again that would be discrimination.

[Kenny's Jacket]

It’s not discrimination to think something though.  The law is only concerned with doing.  You’re not allowed to do something that discriminates, but you are allowed to think whatever you like.  Your apartheid guy is discriminating by treating people differently.

Yeah good point.   

[Iska]

Hes a restaurant owner, he doesnt make banners, he provides a table chair and food which hes happy to do for the black customer, with a caveat. Same as the bakers were happy to provide a cake to the gay man, with a caveat.

Or is the point here on the ruling solely to do with promoting a message ? (if so I still think the restaurant example fits)

If thats is the case do you think the ruling would have been different in a country that has legalised gay marriage?

The caveat is the thing though - the apartheid guy is imposing the caveat on black people and not on white people.  That’s the discrimination.  The bakery is imposing that caveat on everyone.

[TepidT2O]

Hes a restaurant owner, he doesnt make banners, he provides a table chair and food which hes happy to do for the black customer, with a caveat. Same as the bakers were happy to provide a cake to the gay man, with a caveat.

Or is the point here on the ruling solely to do with promoting a message ? (if so I still think the restaurant example fits)

If thats is the case do you think the ruling would have been different in a country that has legalised gay marriage?

Personally, I don’t think it’s right at all..

But this is about the legal case.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The caveat is the thing though - the apartheid guy is imposing the caveat on black people and not on white people.  That’s the discrimination.  The bakery is imposing that caveat on everyone.

Yeah the Penny's dropped now mate.  Thanks for your patience.  I dont like the ruling but can accept it

[Kenny's Jacket]

Personally, I don’t think it’s right at all..

But this is about the legal case.

Yeah I understand

I have really close gay mates and can get emotional on some issues where I cant see the wood from the trees

[B0151?]

I think I do lean towards that it's probably the correct decision legally, but I would say I wish people wouldn't compare an equality/anti-homophobia issue to something random like a dislike for Thatcher (sorry, just the first one I saw I know other people have used different examples). I get the point but like I say this is about homophobia for a lot of people, and even if you think the ruling is right, the bakers certainly are discriminating on whether they made the cake due to their homophobic feelings on gay marriage.

[AndyInVA]

I listened to this on the BBC today. All I could think was if someone wanted a nazi symbol on a cake.

It does seem more offensive as the guys are same sex.

[thejbs]

Also, they’ve been totally set up here, by the looks of it.  The guy appears to have thought up something nonsensical, purely so they would refuse and he could try to get them prosecuted and they’ve been dragged through the courts for years on the back of it.  That’s cruel, no matter what you think of their beliefs.  They didn’t pick this fight.

With respect, that is an ignorant slur. While I don't know him, we have mutual friends who've vouched for his character. He was a customer for a long time before he requested the cake to be made - to mark the first openly gay lord mayor at a time when the DUP had just vetoed a majority vote for marriage equality. After being refused (he was initially allowed to place the order, it was later refused), he went to the equality commission and they decided that the case should be persued in court.

And as for the young, photogenic Christian couple being 'dragged through the courts for years' bit, they have been doing the dragging. Funded by a large Christian lobby group, they refused to accept the intitial ruling and the appeal ruling and pushed for today's ruling. Chrisitians have been using the case as a cause celebre by keeping it in the news and in the courts! Their business, meanwhile, has seen an upturn in profits thanks to NI being the shitty, bigoted backwater that it is.

I think the ruling was the right one, but I really can't abide the view that the gay man was part of a big gay plan to setup two young humble bakers.

[Barneylfc∗]

thanks to NI being the shitty, bigoted backwater that it is.

That's pretty offensive to anyone that doesn't vote DUP. The majority of us are sound, but they're keeping us in the dark ages. 

[Iska]

With respect, that is an ignorant slur. While I don't know him, we have mutual friends who've vouched for his character. He was a customer for a long time before he requested the cake to be made - to mark the first openly gay lord mayor at a time when the DUP had just vetoed a majority vote for marriage equality. After being refused (he was initially allowed to place the order, it was later refused), he went to the equality commission and they decided that the case should be persued in court.

And as for the young, photogenic Christian couple being 'dragged through the courts for years' bit, they have been doing the dragging. Funded by a large Christian lobby group, they refused to accept the intitial ruling and the appeal ruling and pushed for today's ruling. Chrisitians have been using the case as a cause celebre by keeping it in the news and in the courts! Their business, meanwhile, has seen an upturn in profits thanks to NI being the shitty, bigoted backwater that it is.

I think the ruling was the right one, but I really can't abide the view that the gay man was part of a big gay plan to setup two young humble bakers.

Thanks, that’s helpful.  To clarify, I wasn’t suggesting there was a big gay lobby, what I’m saying is that it looks like it’s a carefully-selected test case, and I’d feel sorry for anyone who’d been treated as a criminal in order for someone to make a point (in this case the Equalities Commission, you’re right).  I’m still not clear on what the cake was for, but each to their own I guess.

It was the crime part of it that had got me angry, as that’s what I’d seen it reported as at the time - but I’ve read the judgment again, and the two sets of regulations, and the talk about ‘it shall be unlawful’ rather than ‘it shall be an offence’, so I don’t think it actually was being treated as a crime at all.  That’s what would have been cruel, and nobody can just accept criminal charges.  In any case, they did win the case so they can hardly be blamed for taking it all the way through the courts regardless of who’s paying for it.

Having thought about it overnight though, it’s a good, mostly clear judgment I think, there’s been a valuable public service done in clarifying the law, and nobody seems to have been persecuted through the criminal courts, so ... well done everyone involved I suppose?!

[ChaChaMooMoo]

This would also apply if the request for the cake in this particular case was simply to have a picture of bert and ernie on the top and that had been refused, it's the accompanying wording that was requested that changed the context or message and led to the refusal.

I hear you. I also understand that legally, this case is sound and that the court has interpreted the word of the law and applied it here. But technically, this is discrimination is it not?

Anyone could refuse an order for a marriage cake because it depicts two people of the same sex on the top. It is not that they refused to bake a wedding cake. They simply refused to put up the figurines (the dancing couple doll) on the top of the cake. And is that not a basis of discrimination? And what about car rentals? Or renting homes? Or even something as small as an evening dinner at a restaurant? The same logic could be applied here.

Doesnt this court order technically abdicate "equality in the eyes of the law" and embrace "equality when it serves business needs"? Surely it isn't "discrimination" if the people were indeed gay and the bakery simple said that the baking oven is broken down or they dont have the capacity to bake that order.

I am trying to understand why this line that separates legal implication and moral understanding seem so arbitrary to us. Even to posters on this thread. Some are for and some are against. So why is it that we are discussing whats clearly a classic case of head vs heart dilemma?

[Iska]

I hear you. I also understand that legally, this case is sound and that the court has interpreted the word of the law and applied it here. But technically, this is discrimination is it not?

Anyone could refuse an order for a marriage cake because it depicts two people of the same sex on the top. It is not that they refused to bake a wedding cake. They simply refused to put up the figurines (the dancing couple doll) on the top of the cake. And is that not a basis of discrimination? And what about car rentals? Or renting homes? Or even something as small as an evening dinner at a restaurant? The same logic could be applied here.

Doesnt this court order technically abdicate "equality in the eyes of the law" and embrace "equality when it serves business needs"? Surely it isn't "discrimination" if the people were indeed gay and the bakery simple said that the baking oven is broken down or they dont have the capacity to bake that order.

I am trying to understand why this line that separates legal implication and moral understanding seem so arbitrary to us. Even to posters on this thread. Some are for and some are against. So why is it that we are discussing whats clearly a classic case of head vs heart dilemma?

I think that’s the distinction the court is drawing in this para:

62. The important message from the Masterpiece Bakery case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics. One can debate which side of the line particular factual scenarios fall. But in our case there can be no doubt. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If and to the extent that there was discrimination on grounds of political opinion, no justification has been shown for the compelled speech which would be entailed for imposing civil liability for refusing to fulfil the order.

I take it to mean that you can refuse to support a message (i.e. it’s saying that this isn’t discrimination), but you can’t discriminate against an individual.  In your scenario, if you supply cakes to straight couples, you have to supply them to gay couples.  If you supply [slogan A] cakes to straight people, you have to supply them to gay people.  But supplying [slogan A] cakes doesn’t mean you have to supply [slogan B] ones.  Para 62 notes that it won’t always be clear which is one kind and which is the other (I don’t think that two caster sugar grooms is [slogan A], but perhaps that remains to be seen!).  It doesn’t attempt to to define it any more precisely than that, and not could it, life is too complex.

I don’t see what better solution there could be, really.  The alternative would be to draw a distinction between ones private beliefs and one’s non-private life, and rule that you can’t bring the former into the latter.  But that would require a complex definition of its own, and has other posters have noted there are all sorts of reasons why you might not want to live like that.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Don't understand why anyone is uncertain about or uncomfortable with this ruling. It's clear, obvious and correct.

The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation

[Jake]

As a designer should I be forced to produce a poster for UKIP against my political beliefs?

No because politics isn't a protected characteristic, its a choice.

[thejbs]

That's pretty offensive to anyone that doesn't vote DUP. The majority of us are sound, but they're keeping us in the dark ages.

It’s not just the DUP voters. I come from the catholic ‘side’ and it’s swarming with bigots. I’ve heard students, people born in the late nineties and noughties, chanting ‘IRA’ in the holylands.  You think SF voters are voting for social policy alone? Why do we still have support for segregated religion?

Bigotry is a massive problem here.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I've followed this a case from the start and have little doubt that the Supreme Court came to the correct decision with regard to equality legislation.

However, Its not as simple as suggesting that the original Judge and The Appeals Court got it wrong though. A court can only rule on the arguments in front of them.

I was surprised when the original verdict came in - as I thought this was fairly open and shut case. The decision would be about the service the customer wanted to procure and not about the sexual orientation of the customer. However coverage of the proceedings, in particular interviews with the Asher's changed my opinion somewhat.

The Asher's didn't appear to be arguing that this was about the service being procured and more about their religious beliefs. Essentially they were having the case tried on a much narrower test than that which the Supreme Court ultimately decided the case on.

Ultimately, if a vendor has the right to decide what services they provide, I believe they do, than it doesn't matter what grounds they base that decision on. I expect there are people (just one person would do for the purposes of my premise) who are strong opponents of gay marriage who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. Should they be stopped from also refusing to provide a service that supports gay marriage purely because their motivation is not their religion? Personally I don't think so.

In my opinion, the Asher's and their supporters were hoping for a much bigger win here i.e. they were trying to enshrine the principle of discrimination, on the basis of religious beliefs, into the law of Northern Ireland. I've not had a chance to read the full transcript obviously but going by the minimal comment they have given to date, The Supreme Court doesn't appear to have  given them that -  quite the opposite in fact.

Just thought the above worth bumping here. It seems that, on balance, this was not only the correct verdict, but the right outcome too. My own personal view is that the defendants are bigoted assholes, but the law has to work in the round; otherwise, it would be discriminatory too. This is one of those cases where different 'rights' are conflict with each other. This necessitates compromise. This case mirrors much of political discourse today - too many purists (on both sides). I say this as someone who decidedly leans left (but accepting that people vary in their perspectives and always will).

[B0151?]

Don't understand why anyone is uncertain about or uncomfortable with this ruling. It's clear, obvious and correct.

What's hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with it? It was about whether people have the right to be homophobic while doing their job or not. The legal basis that currently covers discrimination doesn't cover this for sure but it should be really easy to understand why people would feel strongly enough about equality and homophobia to be uncomfortable with this being allowed, even if it's probably correct that it is.

Like I say, I agree with the law right now I think. But it's hilarious to see responses like this when discrimination laws are a relatively new thing and people would have made posts like this to defend that right to discriminate. No doubt there are plenty of people that still do think you should have the right to not serve gay people, and other groups of people. They will be the happiest about this ruling today, that's for damn sure.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

What's hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with it? It was about whether people have the right to be homophobic while doing their job or not. The legal basis that currently covers discrimination doesn't cover this for sure but it should be really easy to understand why people would feel strongly enough about equality and homophobia to be uncomfortable with this being allowed, even if it's probably correct that it is.

Like I say, I agree with the law right now I think. But it's hilarious to see responses like this when discrimination laws are a relatively new thing and people would have made posts like this to defend that right to discriminate. No doubt there are plenty of people that still do think you should have the right to not serve gay people, and other groups of people. They will be the happiest about this ruling today, that's for damn sure.

So again I'll ask, should I have to design a poster for UKIP?

The bakers would have refused to produce that particular cake for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, therefore it's not discrimination.

[Zeb]

Weirdest issue with this ruling is it's done by extending the owners' belief system onto an entire chain of bakeries and all the staff within them. Used to be that it would be tiny businesses where that would be the case - like a single artist designing a poster where the work could be seen as reflecting much more on their own private beliefs.

[Barneylfc∗]

It’s not just the DUP voters. I come from the catholic ‘side’ and it’s swarming with bigots. I’ve heard students, people born in the late nineties and noughties, chanting ‘IRA’ in the holylands.  You think SF voters are voting for social policy alone? Why do we still have support for segregated religion?

Bigotry is a massive problem here.

My point was directed at the matter in hand, rather than sectarian bigotry.

[B0151?]

So again I'll ask, should I have to design a poster for UKIP?

The bakers would have refused to produce that particular cake for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, therefore it's not discrimination.

How is it not discrimination? They are discriminating against gay marriage. It's whether they should be allowed to do that or not. I've already said I think they probably should. But yes, they are discriminating against gay marriage because they are homophobic. How are they not? And why are you comparing not liking UKIP to homophobia? 

The reason this went to court is because it was pertaining to discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Obviously gay marriage and opposition against is an issue directly about this, so I wish you guys would cease with that Nazi and UKIP shite. It's honestly offensive to even included it in this conversation. This is about homophobia and discrimination laws.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

How is it not discrimination?

How is it discrimination?

They would have refused to produce the cake for anyone.

[damomad]

How is it not discrimination? They are discriminating against gay marriage. It's whether they should be allowed to do that or not. I've already said I think they probably should. But yes, they are discriminating against gay marriage because they are homophobic. How are they not? And why are you comparing not liking UKIP to homophobia? 

The reason this went to court is because it was pertaining to discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Obviously gay marriage and opposition against is an issue directly about this, so I wish you guys would cease with that Nazi and UKIP shite. It's honestly offensive to even included it in this conversation. This is about homophobia and discrimination laws.

I'm 100% for gay marriage but the wrong battle is being fought here and they are only damaging their cause in this country by arguing over a cake.

Gay marriage is illegal so how anyone can get in trouble for not supporting it is beyond me.

[rob1966]

How is it not discrimination? They are discriminating against gay marriage. It's whether they should be allowed to do that or not. I've already said I think they probably should. But yes, they are discriminating against gay marriage because they are homophobic. How are they not? And why are you comparing not liking UKIP to homophobia? 

The reason this went to court is because it was pertaining to discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Obviously gay marriage and opposition against is an issue directly about this, so I wish you guys would cease with that Nazi and UKIP shite. It's honestly offensive to even included it in this conversation. This is about homophobia and discrimination laws.

At no point did they say they had an issue with the customer sexuality, I've no idea if they were aware or not of his sexuality. However, they did not (according to them) refuse to bake the cake, just refused to put the message on. There is no way of knowing, as far as I can see, that they have an issue with being gay, but they do have an issue with gay marriage.

The bigger issue for me here is that in these times, a religion is till teaching that homosexuality is a sin, punishable by death in some versions and that gay marriage is illegal. We need to target the bigots who teach this and eradicate these teachings.

I said it earlier, if god is so infallible to them, then god must have chosen to create gay people.

I'm 100% for gay marriage but the wrong battle is being fought here and they are only damaging their cause in this country by arguing over a cake.

Gay marriage is illegal so how anyone can get in trouble for not supporting it is beyond me.

Didn't realise it was still illegal in NI. That puts another angle on it that they are being asked to add a message in support of an illegal (albeit wrongly) activity.

[damomad]

It’s not just the DUP voters. I come from the catholic ‘side’ and it’s swarming with bigots. I’ve heard students, people born in the late nineties and noughties, chanting ‘IRA’ in the holylands.  You think SF voters are voting for social policy alone? Why do we still have support for segregated religion?

Bigotry is a massive problem here.

Poor example. They are students, binge drinking and not thinking. Wait until they hit the workplace and they will adjust. We all have our beliefs and prejudices but we get on with each other. I reckon I could go to 90% of places in Belfast on a night out and not even have the thought of sectarianism cross my mind.

Of course it's still inherent in some but we're still barely a generation away from the troubles.

[B0151?]

How is it discrimination?

They would have refused to produce the cake for anyone.

If they refused to make a cake that had something to do with an Islam event while they would make a cake that had something to do with a Christian event, then yes, that would be discrimination. It's whether you think they should be allowed to discriminate on that basis that is the issue.

Their decision not to make the cake is rooted in their homophobia, which people obviously understandably have an issue with. What part about that is hard to understand?

[damomad]

Didn't realise it was still illegal in NI. That puts another angle on it that they are being asked to add a message in support of an illegal (albeit wrongly) activity.

It's crazy but that's case closed right there. It's unfortunate for the gay community, Ashers' is never empty now. The arguments I've heard as a result of this and the antagonistic attitude resembles that of the bible bashers.

Calm cool heads must prevail if we are ever to progress to be in line with the rest of UK/Ireland on marriage laws.

[B0151?]

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe opposition to gay marriage is homophobia. I do.

I think that if women did not have the vote, and I was campaigning for them to get the vote, and asked someone to make me a cake supporting this, and they did not because they don't think that women should have the vote. I would say that they were practising discrimination against women because I would believe (correctly, obviously) that their decision not to make the cake is rooted in their sexism. Thus for me, it would be an issue of discrimination.

Like I say, I think the correct legal decision has been made but when a lot of the posts against it are just echoing the opposition that people have had to discrimination laws completely and comparing it to fucking UKIP and the Nazi's, it pisses me off.

[Ray K]

How is it discrimination?

They would have refused to produce the cake for anyone.

One thing I haven't heard (though I haven't read everything about it), so if anyone could enlighten me:
If the customer had gone into the shop and asked for a wedding cake with, for e.g. 'Congrats to Paul and Mike on your wedding', would they have made it for him?