No one should be forced to work for someone else if they don't like them, even if their reasoning is ridiculous. In this case, there is always another bakery down the street. Only when government endorses such a policy should there be intervention. It is silly to pass laws to make people pretend to like other people or approve of them. In a free market, there will always be someone willing to capitalize on someone else's discriminatory belief system.
Could cost the taxpayer half a million quid. The only winners out of this are the lawyers.
I've already stated that I really doubt that the customer was the wide eyed innocent that he portrays, but I'm not comfortable with the bakery's decision, reported to be several days after taking the order and payment, to refuse to honour what (to my, admittedly, non-legal mind) appears to be a contract.
If they'd refused on the spot, fair enough, but...
PS Do you think someone would get away with the same slogan and yesterday's picture of Arlene Foster and Diane Dodds MEP, instead of Bert and Ernie - it's a much more convincing image, IMHO.
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.
Thanks Stu (and CE), that's a good catch, I didn't get that.
This story makes me feel awkward for everyone involved tbh
Thank you for providing the most British response to a legal dispute. In my mind, every written verdict ends with some variation of this sentence.
Come on fella, if this was on your side of the Pond then it would still be going on for many years to come.
Massive story on BBC News at 10pm, lead story with further analysis later in the program. With all that is happening in the world this whole story is so insignificant, futile and pointless and I am ashamed I even contributed to this thread. However it still comes second to that ridiculous case where a hetro couple demanded to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership, more pointless than Richard and Alexander combined. Of course the law is going to be changed but so what? Just get married.
This story makes me feel awkward for everyone involved tbh
Thank you for providing the most British response to a legal dispute. In my mind, every written verdict ends with some variation of this sentence.
Come on fella, if this was on your side of the Pond then it would still be going on for many years to come.
Massive story on BBC News at 10pm, lead story with further analysis later in the program. With all that is happening in the world this whole story is so insignificant, futile and pointless and I am ashamed I even contributed to this thread. However it still comes second to that ridiculous case where a hetro couple demanded to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership, more pointless than Richard and Alexander combined. Of course the law is going to be changed but so what? Just get married.
It is a good question and it is good to explore these things I think. That is how we should all try to shape our views in my opinion. If we just say - that's the law simple it is too easy. I think the balance between respecting religious freedom and equalities is incredibly difficult. I suspect there was a motivation outside of wanting a cake behind this. Should we try to trap people with strong religious views into these situations.
To be honest, if you genuinely wanted me to print them I'd probably do them as what would you possiblt do with them that would damage me? I'd just be getting your money!
Why didn’t he just make the bloody cake?! The bloke was paying and it’s not a message that will encite hate. Surely we’re beyond two human beings loving each other regardless of what gender they are? Silly baker.
Why didn’t he just make the bloody cake?! The bloke was paying and it’s not a message that will encite hate. Surely we’re beyond two human beings loving each other regardless of what gender they are? Silly baker.
We are not too far beyond it are we? We have only recently allowed gay marriage. Many people still oppose it, including high profile politicians.
Why didn’t he just make the bloody cake?! The bloke was paying and it’s not a message that will encite hate. Surely we’re beyond two human beings loving each other regardless of what gender they are? Silly baker.
We are not too far beyond it are we? We have only recently allowed gay marriage. Many people still oppose it, including high profile politicians.
There is plenty of homophobia still around and most religions actively oppose homosexuality. If religion justifies your views then you'll usually be okay.
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
Why didn’t he just make the bloody cake?! The bloke was paying and it’s not a message that will encite hate. Surely we’re beyond two human beings loving each other regardless of what gender they are? Silly baker.
All rules go out of the window where extreme Bible* bashers are concerned.
* Other religious works of fiction are available and apply equally
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
Most world religions are homophobic - I don't see many that aren't? The dictionary definition of homophobic is 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.'
Legal cases are needed sometimes to set legal precedents to govern how society conducts itself - the cost may be an issue but at least a precedent has been established.
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
I have a problem with burkha's because in this country, thankfully, women are equal, but if women want to wear them and are not forced to, they should have the right to. But they may say they are not forced but there may be a pressure. It is clear how messy religion makes things that would otherwise be simple.
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
I have a problem with burkha's because in this country, thankfully, women are equal, but if women want to wear them and are not forced to, they should have the right to. But they may say they are not forced but there may be a pressure. It is clear how messy religion makes things that would otherwise be simple.
The best solution would be to get rid of religion but I don't see that happening.
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
I have a problem with burkha's because in this country, thankfully, women are equal, but if women want to wear them and are not forced to, they should have the right to. But they may say they are not forced but there may be a pressure. It is clear how messy religion makes things that would otherwise be simple.
The best solution would be to get rid of religion but I don't see that happening.
would the club shop print Roland out on the back of a shirt?, there are lots of examples you can use imo i think the bakery are perfectly entitled to there views on it, i don't see too many condemning the outrageous views by many imams, priests, vicars, rabbis i don't see them getting coverage on the bbc ( and please do not say its bollocks because i can find many sources ) check out reggie yates doc on netflix.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
I have a problem with burkha's because in this country, thankfully, women are equal, but if women want to wear them and are not forced to, they should have the right to. But they may say they are not forced but there may be a pressure. It is clear how messy religion makes things that would otherwise be simple.
The best solution would be to get rid of religion but I don't see that happening.
Don’t agree with the views of the baker, but think the correct verdict was reached given that the case was about discrimination and there was no discrimination.
Comments
If they'd refused on the spot, fair enough, but...
PS Do you think someone would get away with the same slogan and yesterday's picture of Arlene Foster and Diane Dodds MEP, instead of Bert and Ernie - it's a much more convincing image, IMHO.
And vein piping.
Massive story on BBC News at 10pm, lead story with further analysis later in the program. With all that is happening in the world this whole story is so insignificant, futile and pointless and I am ashamed I even contributed to this thread. However it still comes second to that ridiculous case where a hetro couple demanded to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership, more pointless than Richard and Alexander combined. Of course the law is going to be changed but so what? Just get married.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/u-s-supreme-court-backs-christian-baker-who-rebuffed-gay-couple-idUSKCN1J01WU
To be honest, if you genuinely wanted me to print them I'd probably do them as what would you possiblt do with them that would damage me? I'd just be getting your money! Do you think you could manage 1,000 sheets of rice paper? It would kill you!
Surely we’re beyond two human beings loving each other regardless of what gender they are?
Silly baker.
equally the customer has a right to tell people of the company not making cakes on religious grounds.
250k it has cost the public - what a fucking waste of money.
also if you oppose gay marriage in religious houses i do not believe that makes you homophobic, pretty much every religion in the world condemns it.
when a woman wears a burkha - that's fine because its there religion.
when a baker refuses to make a cake because of his christian views - outrage, court cases, protests etc.
the hypocrisy within that is ridiculous.
* Other religious works of fiction are available and apply equally
Legal cases are needed sometimes to set legal precedents to govern how society conducts itself - the cost may be an issue but at least a precedent has been established.