Gay Cake Gate Thrown Out.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444

[davebro]

Good - he shoulda just gone to another cake shop.

[ToraToraTora]

Have they paid their own legal costs for this charade?

[douglas9401]

I did wonder if they used queen's counsel.

[andy-hughes]

The discussion will probably revolve around the emotion-free legal aspects, which are cut and dried, and the emotional pros and cons, which depend on personal viewpoints.

To kick it off - I think the bakery was wrong to discriminate, but the court has judged otherwise.

[youngmafbog]

Why couldn't they just go to another shop?

I dont insist on buying pork from the Halal butcher, I respect why he doesnt sell it and buy elsewhere.

[Kardashev]

Is it not the case that any retail establishment can refuse to serve anyone if they don't want to and they don't have to explain why? I suspect the shopkeeper's error here was giving a reason.

[ToraToraTora]

YMB because the object of the exercise was to make a song and dance of bullying a Christian shopkeeper to make a point. If they really cared about getting a cake they would have gone elsewhere as you say.

[mushroom25]

since anything that conflicts with the views of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is extremely political, wouldn't it have been easier for the bakery to say "No Political Slogans"?

[andy-hughes]

YMB - // Why couldn't they just go to another shop?

I dont insist on buying pork from the Halal butcher, I respect why he doesnt sell it and buy elsewhere. //

That's not a valid comparison.

You know the butcher does not sell pork because he is a Halal butcher, so you would not reasonably expect him to sell it.

If he presented himself as a standard high street butcher, and then refused to sell you pork because of his beliefs, then your comparison would be accurate.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // YMB because the object of the exercise was to make a song and dance of bullying a Christian shopkeeper to make a point. //

There was no 'bullying' involved, and the case had nothing to do with the baker being a Christian.

The case arose because the baker cited his Christian beliefs as the reason for refusing the customer's order.

As has been advised elsewhere, the baker could have refused the order without reason, and been perfectly within his rights.

He chose to make an issue out of his reason, taking the moral high ground, and contravening the laws on prejudice in the process.

[naomi24]

Good.

[naomi24]

//The case arose because the baker cited his Christian beliefs as the reason for refusing the customer's order.//

I see nothing wrong in that. People of other religions do likewise.

[barry1010]

The claim wasn't thrown out because the court judged the baker to be in the right - it was simply because the claimant hadn't invoked his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights "at any point in the domestic proceedings" in the UK courts.

This very much puts me in mind of the case of the gay couple and the Christian bed and breakfast owners - the B&B lost their appeals

[jennyjoan]

hope they open up again - their sausage rolls were to die for

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // //The case arose because the baker cited his Christian beliefs as the reason for refusing the customer's order.//

I see nothing wrong in that. People of other religions do likewise.//

In principle, I entirely agree.

But the issue arises when acting on your faith brings you into conflict with secular law, and that is what happened here.

I know it's 20/20 hindsight, but the baker should simply have refused the order without explanation, which he is legally entitled to do, and that would have been no issue.

If you make it clear that you disapprove of someone's lifestyle, and contravene the law in doing so, then you really have only yourself to blame if the person you offend is of a litigious nature.

[SparklyKid]

As has been advised elsewhere, the baker could have refused the order without reason, and been perfectly within his rights.


I strongly suspect that when the cake order was refused, the baker was bullied for his reasons. The gay agenda is quite clear.

[Bobbisox1]

People need to stop clambering onto the holier than thou bandwagon and get back to basics , this couple should have said ‘0kayyy’ and took themselves off to another bakers , No, they decide to ruin a craftsman’s business and have the shop shut and take the matter to court , the right decision was made to kick it out, I hope the baker can reopen with three times the customers they had ,saying as the name of the shop will now be well known, good luck to their future

[SparklyKid]

Hi Bobbs, agreed.

[andy-hughes]

Sparkly - // I strongly suspect that when the cake order was refused, the baker was bullied for his reasons. The gay agenda is quite clear. //

And I strongly suspect that you are looking for a scenario that did not exist in order to shoehorn in your belief that the couple involved in the case are bullies, and reactionaries based on their need to confront homophobia everywhere they find it.

If you are refused service in a shop, and the owner has advised you that he does not wish to give a reason for that refusal, do you seriously think he is immediately going to cave in and confess his prejudice simply because the customer asks him why?

Or, as in your scenario, the customer 'bullies' him into a response?

I think that hardly likely.

The shop owner can refuse, and politely decline to give a reason.

If the customer argues or 'bullies' him, the owner can ask the customer to leave the shop, and call the police if he refuses.