Cakes for all you bigots

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

Perhaps it will be appealed.

 

(And maybe someone will point out that gay just means happy).

[SnailyBoy 10]

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.

 

Well first of all I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to state my position for me. I haven't stated anywhere that I have 100% confidence in the courts or that judges don't make mistakes.

 

Page 12 gives a much more detailed explanation from the judge than just that the plaintiff supported gay marriage. He goes on the explain why the defendant must have know that the plaintiff was gay.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Well first of all I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to state my position for me. I haven't stated anywhere that I have 100% confidence in the courts or that judges don't make mistakes.

I'm sorry but that's the only conclusion I can draw by your references to all of the judges statements as objective facts, and your continued attempts to present them as such.

 

Page 12 gives a much more detailed explanation from the judge than just that the plaintiff supported gay marriage. He goes on the explain why the defendant must have know that the plaintiff was gay.

Once again, here you are with no doubt: 'the defendant must have known the plaintiff was gay'

 

"I find, on the evidence before me, that the Defendants did have the knowledge that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay. The reasons for this finding are that the Defendants must have known that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and/or associated with others who supported gay marriage as this was a cake for special event the Plaintiff was attending; it was known to the third Defendant that the Plaintiff was a member of a small volunteer group; he wanted graphics on the cake; those graphics included 'support gay marriage' together with a reference to 'Queerspace'..."

 

So yeah, the judge's reasons for not believing that they didn't know he was gay can be summed up as:

 

'Well he asked for a cake supporting gay marriage, and was a member of a group advocating for gay rights, therefore he must be gay and they must have known it'

 

Doesn't really wash with me.

[loraward 10]

Well first of all I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to state my position for me. I haven't stated anywhere that I have 100% confidence in the courts or that judges don't make mistakes.

 

Page 12 gives a much more detailed explanation from the judge than just that the plaintiff supported gay marriage. He goes on the explain why the defendant must have know that the plaintiff was gay.

 

But what difference does that make, knowing that someone is gay doesn't mean you are discriminating against them on that basis.

[flamingjimmy 10]

In any case, this whole thing about whether they knew he was gay or not isn't really the crux of it if you ask me. They'd apparently served him before anyway so he clearly wasn't being denied service just because he was gay.

 

The point is I really don't think this is a case of some nasty people deliberately being mean to a gay man just because they can. I think if that were the case they would have refused the order straight away, the fact that they agonised about it over the weekend is telling. I think it's some people who held genuine very strong beliefs that they would be doing something that their god would not want them to do if they fulfilled the order. And I think they should have been able to exercise those beliefs.

 

Here's the 3rd Defendant's witness statement:

 

"Having taken the order, I immediately felt guilty about it. I knew that using our skills and creativity to produce a cake supporting gay marriage - which we consider to be contrary to God's word, was something which would be on my conscience. If we provided the cake in these terms, I would feel that I was betraying my faith and failing to live in accordance with what God expects of me...

 

...Individually and as a family we decided that what was to be on the cake was against our Christian beliefs... we could not promote same-sex marriage because it is against God's word.

 

...I wish to emphasize that this is in no way related to Mr Lee's sexual orientation. We have many gay customers whom we serve regularly without any difficulty. We also have at least one gay member of staff."

 

I mean, c'mon, how can you not feel a little bit sorry for her?

 

Also, Snaily boy we've both been guilty of a hasty assumption: the judge is a she.

Edited May 20, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[SnailyBoy 10]

In any case, this whole thing about whether they knew he was gay or not isn't really the crux of it if you ask me. They'd apparently served him before anyway so he clearly wasn't being denied service just because he was gay.

 

The point is I really don't think this is a case of some nasty people deliberately being mean to a gay man just because they can. I think if that were the case they would have refused the order straight away, the fact that they agonised about it over the weekend is telling. I think it's some people who held genuine very strong beliefs that they would be doing something that their god would not want them to do if they fulfilled the order. And I think they should have been able to exercise those beliefs.

 

Here's the 3rd Defendants witness statement:

 

"Having taken the order, I immediately felt guilty about it. I knew that using our skills and creativity to produce a cake supporting gay marriage - which we consider to be contrary to God's word, was something which would be on my conscience. If we provided the cake in these terms, I would feel that I was betraying my faith and failing to live in accordance with what God expects of me...

 

...Individually and as a family we decided that what was to be on the cake was against our Christian beliefs... we could not promote same-sex marriage because it is against God's word.

 

...I wish to emphasize that this is in no way related to Mr Lee's sexual orientation. We have many gay customers whom we serve regularly without any difficulty. We also have at least one gay member of staff."

 

I mean, c'mon, how can you not feel a little bit sorry for her?

 

Also, Snaily boy we've both been guilty of a hasty assumption: the judge is a she.

 

Fair enough, I didn't check the sex of judge...

 

Putting the cake to one side, is this case any different to the B&B case

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10478260/Christian-BandB-owners-attack-new-orthodoxy-of-political-correctness.html

[truman 10]

Fair enough, I didn't check the sex of judge...

 

Putting the cake to one side, is this case any different to the B&B case

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10478260/Christian-BandB-owners-attack-new-orthodoxy-of-political-correctness.html

 

I think it is..they didn't refuse to do the cake because the customer was gay,they'd served him before and,according to the judge, they knew he was gay..they refused because they didn't agree with the "slogan" he wanted due to their religious beliefs..obviously others will disagree..

[flamingjimmy 10]

Fair enough, I didn't check the sex of judge...

 

Putting the cake to one side, is this case any different to the B&B case

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10478260/Christian-BandB-owners-attack-new-orthodoxy-of-political-correctness.html

 

Yes in my opinion.

 

The B&B owners had a double room advertised to rent. Two people came to rent it and were not allowed because they were gay.

 

In contrast the bakery apparently had gay customers and even a gay member of staff, it was the specific message that they were getting on the cake that they didn't want to do.

[Cyclone 10]

I'm sorry but that's the only conclusion I can draw by your references to all of the judges statements as objective facts, and your continued attempts to present them as such.

 

Once again, here you are with no doubt: 'the defendant must have known the plaintiff was gay'

 

"I find, on the evidence before me, that the Defendants did have the knowledge that the Plaintiff was gay and/or associated with others who are gay. The reasons for this finding are that the Defendants must have known that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and/or associated with others who supported gay marriage as this was a cake for special event the Plaintiff was attending; it was known to the third Defendant that the Plaintiff was a member of a small volunteer group; he wanted graphics on the cake; those graphics included 'support gay marriage' together with a reference to 'Queerspace'..."

 

So yeah, the judge's reasons for not believing that they didn't know he was gay can be summed up as:

 

'Well he asked for a cake supporting gay marriage, and was a member of a group advocating for gay rights, therefore he must be gay and they must have known it'

 

Doesn't really wash with me.

 

It's likely that the defendant figured it out at that point. But to reach the conclusion the judge has, he should also have been satisfied that the defendant DIDN'T know before... Otherwise the defendant has the defence of having previously served him normal cake quite happily.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 14:37 ----------

 

In any case, this whole thing about whether they knew he was gay or not isn't really the crux of it if you ask me. They'd apparently served him before anyway so he clearly wasn't being denied service just because he was gay.

 

The point is I really don't think this is a case of some nasty people deliberately being mean to a gay man just because they can. I think if that were the case they would have refused the order straight away, the fact that they agonised about it over the weekend is telling. I think it's some people who held genuine very strong beliefs that they would be doing something that their god would not want them to do if they fulfilled the order. And I think they should have been able to exercise those beliefs.

 

Here's the 3rd Defendant's witness statement:

 

"Having taken the order, I immediately felt guilty about it. I knew that using our skills and creativity to produce a cake supporting gay marriage - which we consider to be contrary to God's word, was something which would be on my conscience. If we provided the cake in these terms, I would feel that I was betraying my faith and failing to live in accordance with what God expects of me...

 

...Individually and as a family we decided that what was to be on the cake was against our Christian beliefs... we could not promote same-sex marriage because it is against God's word.

 

...I wish to emphasize that this is in no way related to Mr Lee's sexual orientation. We have many gay customers whom we serve regularly without any difficulty. We also have at least one gay member of staff."

 

I mean, c'mon, how can you not feel a little bit sorry for her?

 

Also, Snaily boy we've both been guilty of a hasty assumption: the judge is a she.

 

As a business then why didn't they get the gay member of staff to bake the cake?

[waldershelf 10]

Christians like Muslims and all sorts of other "god" cults are selective about which bits of their religion they choose to follow and/or treat as apocryphal, there are plenty of bits in the bible that suggest homosexuality is an abhorance and should be treated with extreme violence. So the posters that suggest "jesus" would have behaved any different to the cake makers are probably wide of the mark.

[SnailyBoy 10]

I think it is..they didn't refuse to do the cake because the customer was gay,they'd served him before and,according to the judge, they knew he was gay..they refused because they didn't agree with the "slogan" he wanted due to their religious beliefs..obviously others will disagree..

 

mmmm....yet the B&B turned the gay couple away have stated “We’re just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

 

A slogan on a cake supporting gay marriage, or a gay couple wanting a double room is not agreeing with a lifestyle.

 

So refusing service based on the lifestyle of the customer, unfortunately for them a lifestyle that is protected from discrimination by law.

[truman 10]

mmmm....yet the B&B turned the gay couple away have stated “We’re just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

 

A slogan on a cake supporting gay marriage, or a gay couple wanting a double room is not agreeing with a lifestyle.

 

So refusing service based on the lifestyle of the customer, unfortunately for them a lifestyle that is protected from discrimination by law.

 

It's not straightforward is it? If the person wanting the cake had been "straight" would there have been a problem in the bakery not wanting to do it?