There are so many questions here. This is such a weird issue. And while my questions are phrased humorously, there is a bit of a point to them.
1. What if someone wanted to print "the Chinese - a great bunch of lads" on a cake, and a bakery "profoundly disagreed" with that message?
2. Equally - why didn't they find another fucking bakery lol
3. Where is the line between discriminating against a person or people for whatever reason, and discriminating against a concept? What if I wanted a cake that said "PaddyP17 is an amazing human" and someone refused to print that on a cake due to profound disagreement? Am I being discriminated against, or is that the message or what?
Point 3 is a good one. It's like saying that making gay sex illegal is not discriminating against homosexuals because NOBODY is allowed to put their penis in another man's bum.
There are so many questions here. This is such a weird issue. And while my questions are phrased humorously, there is a bit of a point to them.
1. What if someone wanted to print "the Chinese - a great bunch of lads" on a cake, and a bakery "profoundly disagreed" with that message?
2. Equally - why didn't they find another fucking bakery lol
3. Where is the line between discriminating against a person or people for whatever reason, and discriminating against a concept? What if I wanted a cake that said "PaddyP17 is an amazing human" and someone refused to print that on a cake due to profound disagreement? Am I being discriminated against, or is that the message or what?
Well phrased. We had roughly the same case here last year and it was found that that particular baker didn't need to make that particular cake for the gay couple. And I have to say I'm fine with that as a one off.
I'm a big fan of religious liberties. But as you say, it's a question of discriminating against a group, and where is the line for that? Because I think it's a very, very fine line between religious freedom and discrimination. And I wish I knew exactly where that line was, but I don't think it's a constant. But I do think it's worth keeping in mind. I'm fine with this person not baking this cake, but I wouldn't be okay with a doctor not treating someone because they're gay, or they had pre-marital sex, or they were divorced (that may sound like a leap but we genuinely have people pushing for those "religious liberties" here).
There are so many questions here. This is such a weird issue. And while my questions are phrased humorously, there is a bit of a point to them.
1. What if someone wanted to print "the Chinese - a great bunch of lads" on a cake, and a bakery "profoundly disagreed" with that message?
2. Equally - why didn't they find another fucking bakery lol
3. Where is the line between discriminating against a person or people for whatever reason, and discriminating against a concept? What if I wanted a cake that said "PaddyP17 is an amazing human" and someone refused to print that on a cake due to profound disagreement? Am I being discriminated against, or is that the message or what?
Well phrased. We had roughly the same case here last year and it was found that that particular baker didn't need to make that particular cake for the gay couple. And I have to say I'm fine with that as a one off.
I'm a big fan of religious liberties. But as you say, it's a question of discriminating against a group, and where is the line for that? Because I think it's a very, very fine line between religious freedom and discrimination. And I wish I knew exactly where that line was, but I don't think it's a constant. But I do think it's worth keeping in mind. I'm fine with this person not baking this cake, but I wouldn't be okay with a doctor not treating someone because they're gay, or they had pre-marital sex, or they were divorced (that may sound like a leap but we genuinely have people pushing for those "religious liberties" here).
Agreed. This is fine as a one-off. But how, legally, might a precedent be set, too?
This is probably one of those things where "each case is a law unto itself", or whatever the actual phrase is that I've presumably terribly paraphrased.
There are so many questions here. This is such a weird issue. And while my questions are phrased humorously, there is a bit of a point to them.
1. What if someone wanted to print "the Chinese - a great bunch of lads" on a cake, and a bakery "profoundly disagreed" with that message?
2. Equally - why didn't they find another fucking bakery lol
3. Where is the line between discriminating against a person or people for whatever reason, and discriminating against a concept? What if I wanted a cake that said "PaddyP17 is an amazing human" and someone refused to print that on a cake due to profound disagreement? Am I being discriminated against, or is that the message or what?
Well phrased. We had roughly the same case here last year and it was found that that particular baker didn't need to make that particular cake for the gay couple. And I have to say I'm fine with that as a one off.
I'm a big fan of religious liberties. But as you say, it's a question of discriminating against a group, and where is the line for that? Because I think it's a very, very fine line between religious freedom and discrimination. And I wish I knew exactly where that line was, but I don't think it's a constant. But I do think it's worth keeping in mind. I'm fine with this person not baking this cake, but I wouldn't be okay with a doctor not treating someone because they're gay, or they had pre-marital sex, or they were divorced (that may sound like a leap but we genuinely have people pushing for those "religious liberties" here).
I think the last part you mention was covered in The ruling:
"As to Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation."
Had the baker said he wasn't making a cake for a gay, that would have - quite rightly - been wrong, the line has been quite clearly placed, for now, anyway.
Well me too - I can see both sides. Religion makes it complex when it opposes the laws of the land. I think our laws should always take precedence over religion but as Covered End has answered my question, we shouldn't try to struggle with the complexities, just make gay related jokes and laugh it all off. I suspect that such a ruling will not happen in 10 years time and we should accept there is always a path. It wasn't that long ago that you could be arrested for being gay.
Well me too - I can see both sides. Religion makes it complex when it opposes the laws of the land. I think our laws should always take precedence over religion but as Covered End has answered my question, we shouldn't try to struggle with the complexities, just make gay related jokes and laugh it all off. I suspect that such a ruling will not happen in 10 years time and we should accept there is always a path. It wasn't that long ago that you could be arrested for being gay.
I think you're slightly missing the point here imo. It's not about being gay. It's about a baker, printer or whoever, not being obliged to supply a message with which they profoundly disagree.
I understand the point. I can read, But was questioning it as the case seems a bit more complex than the ruling. If you profoundly disagree gay people should be able to marry when they legally can it may just be something to do with a prejudice against gay people. Whether it stems from religious beliefs or not!
There are so many questions here. This is such a weird issue. And while my questions are phrased humorously, there is a bit of a point to them.
1. What if someone wanted to print "the Chinese - a great bunch of lads" on a cake, and a bakery "profoundly disagreed" with that message?
2. Equally - why didn't they find another fucking bakery lol
3. Where is the line between discriminating against a person or people for whatever reason, and discriminating against a concept? What if I wanted a cake that said "PaddyP17 is an amazing human" and someone refused to print that on a cake due to profound disagreement? Am I being discriminated against, or is that the message or what?
Point 3 is a good one. It's like saying that making gay sex illegal is not discriminating against homosexuals because NOBODY is allowed to put their penis in another man's bum.
But you can continue to put a penis in a woman's bum - seems fair to me
Well me too - I can see both sides. Religion makes it complex when it opposes the laws of the land. I think our laws should always take precedence over religion but as Covered End has answered my question, we shouldn't try to struggle with the complexities, just make gay related jokes and laugh it all off. I suspect that such a ruling will not happen in 10 years time and we should accept there is always a path. It wasn't that long ago that you could be arrested for being gay.
I think you're slightly missing the point here imo. It's not about being gay. It's about a baker, printer or whoever, not being obliged to supply a message with which they profoundly disagree.
To be fair, this then brings the question as to where the line is between a message someone disagrees with, and whether that constitutes discrimination against a person or a concept.
It's a very very tricky precedent to set.
What if the message was something like "black people are lovely", and there was "profound disagreement" there? Does that merit legal protection?
And I realise I'm using some ham-fisted whataboutery in my comparison here, but both are relatively comparable civil liberties issues IMO.
I do understand what people are saying, but my point is - what is the difference between being against gay people marrying and people of different races marrying? Had their religion forbidden inter-racial marriage, would it be acceptable to refuse?
I think you are missing the point, Mutts.
The fact that gay marriage is allowed on the statute books doesn't mean that the thought police are checking that everyone agrees with that piece of law - because they do not have to agree with it.
Is being against abortion sex discrimination because it takes away the right of a women to decide? No it is not.
I do understand what people are saying, but my point is - what is the difference between being against gay people marrying and people of different races marrying? Had their religion forbidden inter-racial marriage, would it be acceptable to refuse?
I think you are missing the point, Mutts.
The fact that gay marriage is allowed on the statute books doesn't mean that the thought police are checking that everyone agrees with that piece of law - because they do not have to agree with it.
Is being against abortion sex discrimination because it takes away the right of a women to decide? No it is not.
I dont think so. If you forgive me, as I don't seek to be rude, I think you are. I understand what you are saying and all the complexities that go with it. But what is the difference between discrimination against race and discrimination against sexuality. PaddyP17 explained it more articulately than me.
It's quite simple. Every baker should be allowed to refuse anything they are asked to bake and decorate if they don't want to and should not have to give a reason why they don't want to. We need Bakers Law.
Can a publican refuse to serve a customer without giving a reason ? Just curious.
It's quite simple. Every baker should be allowed to refuse anything they are asked to bake and decorate if they don't want to and should not have to give a reason why they don't want to. We need Bakers Law.
Can a publican refuse to serve a customer without giving a reason ? Just curious.
Only if ‘lawful’ - ie not if discriminatory to the aforementioned groups.
It was the bakery's right not to print a message with which they disagreed. They are permitted to refuse to promote political views. Discrimination law is about treating people differently, it is not about messages. Human rights law says people are not obliged to manifest a belief that they do not hold. The baker is able to refuse to bake the cake whatever the message said ie if it was support for living in sin, support for a political party. A printer is not obliged to print the bible or koran or a book on atheism for example.
I do understand what people are saying, but my point is - what is the difference between being against gay people marrying and people of different races marrying? Had their religion forbidden inter-racial marriage, would it be acceptable to refuse?
I think you are missing the point, Mutts.
The fact that gay marriage is allowed on the statute books doesn't mean that the thought police are checking that everyone agrees with that piece of law - because they do not have to agree with it.
Is being against abortion sex discrimination because it takes away the right of a women to decide? No it is not.
I dont think so. If you forgive me, as I don't seek to be rude, I think you are. I understand what you are saying and all the complexities that go with it. But what is the difference between discrimination against race and discrimination against sexuality. PaddyP17 explained it more articulately than me.
I believe @Covered_End has explained it even more articulately.
It's quite simple. Every baker should be allowed to refuse anything they are asked to bake and decorate if they don't want to and should not have to give a reason why they don't want to. We need Bakers Law.
Can a publican refuse to serve a customer without giving a reason ? Just curious.
Only if ‘lawful’ - ie not if discriminatory to the aforementioned groups.
I also think it’s a different issue. This is about a cake decoration. If a gay couple had gone into the shop and asked them to make a wedding cake with no names or special decoration, and the shop had refused, the outcome would be very different. At least I hope it would.
It's quite simple. Every baker should be allowed to refuse anything they are asked to bake and decorate if they don't want to and should not have to give a reason why they don't want to. We need Bakers Law.
Can a publican refuse to serve a customer without giving a reason ? Just curious.
Only if ‘lawful’ - ie not if discriminatory to the aforementioned groups.
I also think it’s a different issue. This is about a cake decoration. If a gay couple had gone into the shop and asked them to make a wedding cake with no names or special decoration, and the shop had refused, the outcome would be very different. At least I hope it would.
Yes, or if they had been refused marriage. They point isn't whether or not you agree with the views. I think the court of appeal made the right decision for the right reasons, even though my personal view is that being against a legal right because of religious views is a load of cock.
I can actually see both sides, but it is anything other than simple. I don't disagree with the decision for the reasons given, but that there may have been an underlying prejudice that niggles a bit. As people have pointed out, it is a very complex area despite people seeking to portray it as a simple one.
It’s quite simple, refuse to sell to or make a cake for, because they are gay, is discrimination and illegal, refusal to adorn it with a political statement you don’t conscientiously agree with, is not. As an example, if you were asked to provide a cake with the political message of legalise all drugs, free Julian Assange/tommy Robinson, you may have an issue with that.
i think the disagreement here, is not necessarily with the ruling per se but with the point it is simple. It isn't and the history of this case bears that out.
Comments
I'm a big fan of religious liberties. But as you say, it's a question of discriminating against a group, and where is the line for that? Because I think it's a very, very fine line between religious freedom and discrimination. And I wish I knew exactly where that line was, but I don't think it's a constant. But I do think it's worth keeping in mind. I'm fine with this person not baking this cake, but I wouldn't be okay with a doctor not treating someone because they're gay, or they had pre-marital sex, or they were divorced (that may sound like a leap but we genuinely have people pushing for those "religious liberties" here).
This is probably one of those things where "each case is a law unto itself", or whatever the actual phrase is that I've presumably terribly paraphrased.
"As to Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation."
Had the baker said he wasn't making a cake for a gay, that would have - quite rightly - been wrong, the line has been quite clearly placed, for now, anyway.
It's not about being gay.
It's about a baker, printer or whoever, not being obliged to supply a message with which they profoundly disagree.
It's a very very tricky precedent to set.
What if the message was something like "black people are lovely", and there was "profound disagreement" there? Does that merit legal protection?
And I realise I'm using some ham-fisted whataboutery in my comparison here, but both are relatively comparable civil liberties issues IMO.
The fact that gay marriage is allowed on the statute books doesn't mean that the thought police are checking that everyone agrees with that piece of law - because they do not have to agree with it.
Is being against abortion sex discrimination because it takes away the right of a women to decide? No it is not.
Just curious.
They are permitted to refuse to promote political views.
Discrimination law is about treating people differently, it is not about messages.
Human rights law says people are not obliged to manifest a belief that they do not hold.
The baker is able to refuse to bake the cake whatever the message said ie if it was support for living in sin, support for a political party.
A printer is not obliged to print the bible or koran or a book on atheism for example.
As an example, if you were asked to provide a cake with the political message of legalise all drugs, free Julian Assange/tommy Robinson, you may have an issue with that.
BULLSHIT!
Or
"my facts are not always facts"