Azes 2740: Can’t Work Out The Code...
Crosswords3 mins ago
We Are Not Gay Bakers
Another one of these rulings
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That's an interesting and unusual case Naomi, thank you. It's from 2005 - I wonder if it would turn out the same way now.
You are right in as much as the unfortunate "victims" in this case did nothing wrong whatsoever; they should have been able to buy contraception. The fact that they couldn't, because a (presumably religious) pharmacist wouldn't sell it to them, is a travesty. The fact that the baker wouldn't sell a cake is also a travesty.
The first case is slightly different in that the pharmaceutical industry is medical, regulated and has a "Code of Ethics". The baker was not hiding behind a professional code of ethics, but directly behind a religion.
Another small difference is that the pharmacy would at other times have sold the contraception - circumstances dictated that they did not sell them at that instant, due to a shortage of suitable staff; whereas the bakery took a week to decide that there was no way it would sell the cake at any time.
You are right in as much as the unfortunate "victims" in this case did nothing wrong whatsoever; they should have been able to buy contraception. The fact that they couldn't, because a (presumably religious) pharmacist wouldn't sell it to them, is a travesty. The fact that the baker wouldn't sell a cake is also a travesty.
The first case is slightly different in that the pharmaceutical industry is medical, regulated and has a "Code of Ethics". The baker was not hiding behind a professional code of ethics, but directly behind a religion.
Another small difference is that the pharmacy would at other times have sold the contraception - circumstances dictated that they did not sell them at that instant, due to a shortage of suitable staff; whereas the bakery took a week to decide that there was no way it would sell the cake at any time.
read the full judgement for yourselves here:-
https:/
i'm still uncomfortable with the sexualisation of characters intended for consumption by preschool children, particularly when the point being made is entirely political (ie against an executive full of religious nut jobs from the caleb foundation). the creators of the characters are unequivocal - they are not gay, and never have been.
https:/
i'm still uncomfortable with the sexualisation of characters intended for consumption by preschool children, particularly when the point being made is entirely political (ie against an executive full of religious nut jobs from the caleb foundation). the creators of the characters are unequivocal - they are not gay, and never have been.
Thanks for that link mushroom25 - very informative. When it comes to the crunch, the judge's reasoning was pretty much what I've been posting here ...
-------------------------------------
[93] ... the law must protect all. It must protect the rights of the Defendants to have and to manifest their religious beliefs but it also recognizes that the rights of the Plaintiff not to be discriminated because of his sexual orientation must also be protected.
If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all.
The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
[93] ... the law must protect all. It must protect the rights of the Defendants to have and to manifest their religious beliefs but it also recognizes that the rights of the Plaintiff not to be discriminated because of his sexual orientation must also be protected.
If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all.
The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.
-------------------------------------
// ludwig, we simply have different opinions. There is no resolving this. I am not seeking to "win". :) //
Yes, I agree with you there. I have no time for bigots or religion, but when something makes no sense I feel obliged to keep pointing it out. I disagree with the judgement and the reasoning behind it, as summarised in your above extract. In this (flawed) example..
// If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. //
..I'd also argue that the gay baker wasn't being discriminatory, and if the law says so, I think the law is wrong.
The example is flawed anyway because there's no real comparison. A gay person would have absolutely no reason to object to writing the slogan. There's no 'gay rule book' that says you should consider heterosexual marriage to be wrong.
A more interesting example to consider would be the same scenario but the christian couple asking for the slogan 'Oppose gay marriage'.
Would the gay baker be allowed refuse that one? Who'd be discriminating against whom in that situation?
Perhaps some Christians should find a gay baker and try it.
Yes, I agree with you there. I have no time for bigots or religion, but when something makes no sense I feel obliged to keep pointing it out. I disagree with the judgement and the reasoning behind it, as summarised in your above extract. In this (flawed) example..
// If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. //
..I'd also argue that the gay baker wasn't being discriminatory, and if the law says so, I think the law is wrong.
The example is flawed anyway because there's no real comparison. A gay person would have absolutely no reason to object to writing the slogan. There's no 'gay rule book' that says you should consider heterosexual marriage to be wrong.
A more interesting example to consider would be the same scenario but the christian couple asking for the slogan 'Oppose gay marriage'.
Would the gay baker be allowed refuse that one? Who'd be discriminating against whom in that situation?
Perhaps some Christians should find a gay baker and try it.
> A more interesting example to consider would be the same scenario but the christian couple asking for the slogan 'Oppose gay marriage'. Would the gay baker be allowed refuse that one? Who'd be discriminating against whom in that situation?
No, the gay baker would not be allowed to refuse that one - in my opinion - assuming it was a similar commercial bakery business.
No, the gay baker would not be allowed to refuse that one - in my opinion - assuming it was a similar commercial bakery business.
^ We won't know the answer to that until it's tested in court.
I thought Ian Hislop asked an interesting question on Friday's HIGNFY. If someone visited a muslim baker and asked for a cake with muhammed's face on it, would the law demand that he do it?
Again, we won't know until it's tested in court.
I thought Ian Hislop asked an interesting question on Friday's HIGNFY. If someone visited a muslim baker and asked for a cake with muhammed's face on it, would the law demand that he do it?
Again, we won't know until it's tested in court.
This may not be discrimination on grounds of sexuality but it could be said to be discrimination against someone's innocent convictions, i.e. wanting to support gay marriage. It's basically about a clash of convictions. You could argue that courts should not rule on such things, but i guess they felt the need to set a precedent here. They might have felt that not doing so may encourage discrimination on grounds of sexuality (as many wouldn't identify the difference).
In this case (unlike many of the hypothetical scenarios that have been thrown up here) there is one conviction that is generally viewed by society as positive (supporting gay marriage), and one that is considered negative (opposing gay marriage on religious grounds). I really don't think the verdict is that surprising.
In this case (unlike many of the hypothetical scenarios that have been thrown up here) there is one conviction that is generally viewed by society as positive (supporting gay marriage), and one that is considered negative (opposing gay marriage on religious grounds). I really don't think the verdict is that surprising.
> Didn't cut much ice(ing) Ludwig. If it doesn't fit the meme it's ignored.
svejk, I did not ignore that, I answered it six minutes after you posted it. I wrote:
> Interesting example. That might be worth a go, but a better test would be if they would bake you a cake promoting atheism ...
Thinking about it for a bit more than six minutes, a really good test would be for a cartoonist to go into a Muslim bakery and ask for them to depict one of his cartoons featuring Jesus and Mohammed on a cake.
You wrote "I'm mindful of other peoples' sensibilities" and in this case that's a fair point, but it's worth reading Mr Lee's and the bakery's respective points of view in the link posted by mushroom25. Here is Mr Lee's, for example:
6] The Plaintiff was planning to attend a private event on Friday 17th May 2014 to mark the end of the Northern Ireland anti - homophobia week and to mark the political momentum towards legislation for same-sex marriage.
[7] The Plaintiff decided to purchase a cake for the event. He had previously purchased items at this branch of the 1st Defendant Company and had become aware from a leaflet that he could have a cake iced with a graphic of his own design.
[8] The Plaintiff placed the order on the 8th or 9th of May 2014. His order was accepted without any comment and he did not sense that there was any issue or concern about the graphic. He paid for the cake and was given a receipt.
[9] On Monday 12th May, the Plaintiff received a call from the 3rd Defendant indicating that the order could not be fulfilled as they are a Christian business and, in hindsight, she should not have taken the order. She apologized and arranged for a refund. The Plaintiff expressed disbelief in that it was only a cake and indicated that what they were doing was not right and that he would seek advice. He sent an e mail later that day in which he said:-
“… I was disappointed to receive a telephone call today advising that you will not follow through on the order as you are a “Christian business”. I am obviously very disappointed and at a loss to understand why you cancelled my order that I placed in good faith. It has caused quite a lot of inconvenience…”
[10] The Plaintiff was able to find another bakery in time to provide a cake with the required design.
[11] The Plaintiff described his reaction as shocked and bewildered and felt that the cancellation had been because he is gay and supports same-sex marriage. He did not believe that it was because it is a Christian business as he had grown up in a Christian tradition and not all Christians would make such a judgment. He said:-
“I am a middle aged man and have encountered homophobia in my life but this blatant refusal of a service made me feel like a second class citizen. It is not at all nice to think that a business will discriminate in the way that they provide services to me because I am gay or because I have political views about the need for legislation to support gay marriage or because I did not share their religious views.
…It is not right that I should have to consider every time I go into a shop whether the business can choose to serve me depending on its views of my sexual orientation, religion or politics.
…I was not asking the Defendants to share or support my perceived political views on gay marriage. The graphic did not say this. I was simply asking them to provide me with the service they advertise in their shops.
… I cannot believe that it is good for our community if one commercial organization with particular political or religious views can refuse to supply services to a member of the public who they identify as having the wrong kind of sexual orientation, politics or religion.”
svejk, I did not ignore that, I answered it six minutes after you posted it. I wrote:
> Interesting example. That might be worth a go, but a better test would be if they would bake you a cake promoting atheism ...
Thinking about it for a bit more than six minutes, a really good test would be for a cartoonist to go into a Muslim bakery and ask for them to depict one of his cartoons featuring Jesus and Mohammed on a cake.
You wrote "I'm mindful of other peoples' sensibilities" and in this case that's a fair point, but it's worth reading Mr Lee's and the bakery's respective points of view in the link posted by mushroom25. Here is Mr Lee's, for example:
6] The Plaintiff was planning to attend a private event on Friday 17th May 2014 to mark the end of the Northern Ireland anti - homophobia week and to mark the political momentum towards legislation for same-sex marriage.
[7] The Plaintiff decided to purchase a cake for the event. He had previously purchased items at this branch of the 1st Defendant Company and had become aware from a leaflet that he could have a cake iced with a graphic of his own design.
[8] The Plaintiff placed the order on the 8th or 9th of May 2014. His order was accepted without any comment and he did not sense that there was any issue or concern about the graphic. He paid for the cake and was given a receipt.
[9] On Monday 12th May, the Plaintiff received a call from the 3rd Defendant indicating that the order could not be fulfilled as they are a Christian business and, in hindsight, she should not have taken the order. She apologized and arranged for a refund. The Plaintiff expressed disbelief in that it was only a cake and indicated that what they were doing was not right and that he would seek advice. He sent an e mail later that day in which he said:-
“… I was disappointed to receive a telephone call today advising that you will not follow through on the order as you are a “Christian business”. I am obviously very disappointed and at a loss to understand why you cancelled my order that I placed in good faith. It has caused quite a lot of inconvenience…”
[10] The Plaintiff was able to find another bakery in time to provide a cake with the required design.
[11] The Plaintiff described his reaction as shocked and bewildered and felt that the cancellation had been because he is gay and supports same-sex marriage. He did not believe that it was because it is a Christian business as he had grown up in a Christian tradition and not all Christians would make such a judgment. He said:-
“I am a middle aged man and have encountered homophobia in my life but this blatant refusal of a service made me feel like a second class citizen. It is not at all nice to think that a business will discriminate in the way that they provide services to me because I am gay or because I have political views about the need for legislation to support gay marriage or because I did not share their religious views.
…It is not right that I should have to consider every time I go into a shop whether the business can choose to serve me depending on its views of my sexual orientation, religion or politics.
…I was not asking the Defendants to share or support my perceived political views on gay marriage. The graphic did not say this. I was simply asking them to provide me with the service they advertise in their shops.
… I cannot believe that it is good for our community if one commercial organization with particular political or religious views can refuse to supply services to a member of the public who they identify as having the wrong kind of sexual orientation, politics or religion.”
ladyj. // we should prosecute all kosher and halal butchers for not selling pork products.//
I don't think we can prosecute for that reason, but I think we should prosecute for cruelty, but that's another issue.
Though on that subject and in relation to this matter; I did write earlier that if I were a farmer I would reserved the right not to sell an animal to a halal butcher, not on religious grounds, but because I disapprove of their methods, and I would be prepared to accept any consequences.
Everyone seems to be so sure that if a person is in business, every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to demand your services whether you like it or not, this is nonsense and doesn't apply to a great many concerns in the real world.
I don't think we can prosecute for that reason, but I think we should prosecute for cruelty, but that's another issue.
Though on that subject and in relation to this matter; I did write earlier that if I were a farmer I would reserved the right not to sell an animal to a halal butcher, not on religious grounds, but because I disapprove of their methods, and I would be prepared to accept any consequences.
Everyone seems to be so sure that if a person is in business, every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to demand your services whether you like it or not, this is nonsense and doesn't apply to a great many concerns in the real world.
But it did apply in this case Khandro. You will note from the judgement:
--------------------------
The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.
--------------------------
Note the "in the commercial sphere" - and I made sure to similarly clarify many of my earlier answers. It's definitely different when you're talking about a commercial context.
--------------------------
The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.
--------------------------
Note the "in the commercial sphere" - and I made sure to similarly clarify many of my earlier answers. It's definitely different when you're talking about a commercial context.
-- answer removed --
Khandro, it is not so much to do with the religious aspect as the refusal to provide a simple cake.
So what if the baker does not agree with the message on the cake? Why should they have to? Why do they feel they have to cast judgement on their own customers? If they can't/won't make the cakes their customers want, they will have to give up personalisation and just make standard products - no big deal.
So what if the baker does not agree with the message on the cake? Why should they have to? Why do they feel they have to cast judgement on their own customers? If they can't/won't make the cakes their customers want, they will have to give up personalisation and just make standard products - no big deal.
Latest Posts
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Road rules36 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul36 mins ago
Shopping & Style52 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.