Cakes for all you bigots

[Cyclone 10]

It's in the article, link in the first post.

 

It says nothing about them refusing to serve the gay man, it says they refused to make a cake with that slogan.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:14 ----------

 

Whilst I support the gay couples right to their freedom to continue their lives in a world free from prejudice, I also think that the cake shop owners should be afforded the same right to their personal beliefs and convictions and be allowed to conduct their lives with the same sort of choices that the gay couple are struggling for.

 

The judgement seems to come down to the fact that they owner and baker are employee's of the business, the business cannot have religious views and so the business should have served the customers.

The cake shop owners are entitled to their personal beliefs and convictions when it's personal, but not when they project them onto the legal entity that is the business.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:15 ----------

 

I'd also allow no whites or English, blacks only, gays only, women only, men only, ect.

 

Secure in the knowledge that as a middle aged white man you'd never actually be barred from anything you cared about.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:16 ----------

 

But they would have also refused to make the cake for me and you and anyone else asking for such a cake, what would they have been guilty of in that case?

 

I guess the judge didn't believe them when they made this claim...

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:17 ----------

 

Wow, you're special.

 

You're right, she might have been. But again, the pharmacist isn't discriminating against her as s/he would refuse to supply that medication to everyone. Thereby, not discriminating. Do you get it yet?

 

Isn't that precisely the argument the bakery should have made? That they would refuse to make this cake for anyone and everyone.

[truman 10]

The facts of the case say otherwise. They refused service based on sexual orientation.

 

Did they know the customer was gay?

[Harrystottle 10]

It's a funny kind of discrimination. If the baker had lost his rag and thrown the gay man out of the shop shouting insults the while, then I can see the discrimination; but that didn't happen.

 

He could have had a cake, just not a cake with that slogan on - so where is the discrimination? If I had a shop selling T-shirts and someone came in wanting a shirt with the slogan "Bring back foxhunting", I wouldn't make one.

 

Tbh I feel more sorry for the bakers than the thin skinned gay man. They dragged through the courts by a publicly funded quango because someone had a hissy fit.

[francypants 441]

It says nothing about them refusing to serve the gay man, it says they refused to make a cake with that slogan.

 

 

Isn't that precisely the argument the bakery should have made? That they would refuse to make this cake for anyone and everyone.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY ^^^^^^^^^^^

 

It was stated that the man had previously used the bakery before with no problems ..... therefore this proves that the bakery hadn't just refused to make a cake for the man because he was gay, it was the wording they objected to. If ANYBODY had asked for a cake with the same wording the bakery would have refused..... this is not discrimination.

Sounds like the bakery's defendant failed in getting this point over.

[sgtkate 10]

Top of page 7, item 28the Baker is a limited company who's sole or main purpose is commerce, hence they cannot claim rights under Article 9 of the ECHR

 

which is pretty much what is said on page 40 & 41

 

That has blown my view out of water! I wasn't aware they had previously used the bakery.

 

Hang on, doesn't that therefore add more weight to the argument that they were not discriminating against the man, but simply didn't want to write the message? If they had already served him before it clearly didn't bother then last time...

 

 

Blimey, reading through the thread, I think all the planets must be in alignment. Never have I seen so many people I normally struggle to find middle ground with agreeing with each other and I with them. It's a fabulous day! Now if you would all vote Labour next time round please...

Edited May 20, 2015 by sgtkate

[alchresearch 212]

Would the bakery have got into trouble (especially by the DM) if it had got out they'd made a Gay Bert and Ernie cake? Who owns the rights to Sesame Street these days? B&E weren't gay, neither were Morecambe and Wise when they shared a bed.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Did they know the customer was gay?

 

Yes, it's in the transcript below. Can't paste from the document.

 

No they didn't, they'd used this particular baker before without incident and had no expectation that this time would be any different.

 

Item 7 of the Plaintiffs evidenceFull transcript is here it's a PDF of a scanned document, so no searching is available & you'll have to type any quotes.

[Eater Sundae 12]

That has blown my view out of water! I wasn't aware they had previously used the bakery.

 

Hang on, doesn't that therefore add more weight to the argument that they were not discriminating against the man, but simply didn't want to write the message? If they had already served him before it clearly didn't bother then last time...

 

 

Blimey, reading through the thread, I think all the planets must be in alignment. Never have I seen so many people I normally struggle to find middle ground with agreeing with each other and I with them. It's a fabulous day! Now if you would all vote Labour next time round please...

 

But if they didn't previously know he was gay, then it might add weight to the view that they now refused once they realized he was gay. Although I doubt that was the case.

 

I find it hard to make sense of these types of cases simply because I find it hard to empathise with someone who feels a need to enforce his views on someone else. So, they don't approve of homosexuality. So what? It's not as if they are being required to have sex with the man.

[loraward 10]

 

 

 

Secure in the knowledge that as a middle aged white man you'd never actually be barred from anything you cared about.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:16 ----------

 

 

I guess the judge didn't believe them when they made this claim...

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 09:17 ----------

 

 

Isn't that precisely the argument the bakery should have made? That they would refuse to make this cake for anyone and everyone.

 

There you go with the abuse again and they did make that claim.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Yes, it's in the transcript below. Can't paste from the document.

 

Actually they maintain that they didn't, the judge didn't believe them though.

 

You though apparently have 100% confidence in our courts and are sure that judges never ever make mistakes though so that's good enough for you.

 

In fact, if you go and find it, you'll find the only reason the judge didn't believe them was because the plaintiff supported gay marriage. It's right there on page 12.

 

As if no-one who supported gay marriage could be straight or associate with gay people!

 

I support gay marriage wholeheartedly, yet I am straight and have no gay friends that I know of so that's out of the window.

Edited May 20, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[Cyclone 10]

There you go with the abuse again and they did make that claim.

 

Maybe middle aged was a little bit harsh.

[flamingjimmy 10]

 

I guess the judge didn't believe them when they made this claim...

 

A lot of the judge's ruling seems to center on the actual word 'gay' on the cake.

 

He seems unable to separate the political nature of a cake supporting gay marriage from just a cake that says 'gay' on it.