LGBT News Northern Ireland bakery guilty of discrimination

I'm not so sure about this, I wouldn't go somewhere and ask someone to make a cake for my wedding if the owners weren't comfortable with it, yes there is a big LGBT rights issue in Ireland but this whole scenario is like trying to get a cactus out of your arse by shoving a pineapple up there.

Would you sue a vegetarian restaurant for not serving you a steak?

 

So Patrick, If you owned a bakery would you be willing to make cakes that had anti gay messages written on them for an anti gay groups function

 

So you would refuse based on your opinion or personal values/morals?
yet you are not willing to extend the same consideration to others?
and you wonder why there are people that harbor animosity toward the gay community.

You want what you are unwilling to give. I call that special rights not equality

 

a gay marriage might incite hatred, I mean, here in the U.S we had those fake Christian assholes that formed the Westboro baptist church that even found a way to bring hatred to the funeral of our military coming home.
They did this because those soldiers were fighting to uphold a country that embraced gay people, and their death must certainly be Gods revenge.
Fortunately, the head asshole died, and the family had the nerve to ask that the public show respect and allow is family to bury and grieve in privacy and peace...
I do plan to make the trip one day when I learn were he was planted just to pee on his grave a few times. ( who knows, he might like it )

 

They are rejecting people based on their sexual orientation. If that was allowed you would essentially be legalizing segregation.

 

Religion is a very deep and personal thing for some people. Its not right to ask them to compromise their beliefs.
I would personally just go to another baker, Im pretty sure they are not the only ones in town, and if they are, I might just move there and open an all inslusive bakery up.

sometimes it appears that some gays are actually looking for the services providers that have a good chance of refusing them their business. Again, I dont think its right for them to deny anyone, but at the same time you have to remember who right now has the upper hand and how the best way to sway opinion might be.

---------- Post added 19th May 2015 at 12:12 PM ----------

actually, I might find out the church they are members of and have all my gay friends become members too. how great would it be for them to have to decide if they are going to sit in church with a bunch of Hell bound degenerates, or just quit going because their feelings were hurt.

 

This is a conflict of interest for me. So honestly i am arguing both sides. As much as I think the religious arguments against homosexuality are unreasonable and wrong I think would I personally want to even spend my money at a bakery who has anti gay views. I think there is fine line by kicking someone out of a hotel or restaurant compared to baking a cake for gay wedding. Of course you the situation where no bakery in town has a owner who supports gay rights and therefore who have no way to get a cake easily. That can be a sad thing and create so many problems but at the same time how would your money be spent. Also a pro gay bakery could regret a cake requested by a anti gay group causing discrimination to go both ways. But back to my main when you have town where the a majority is against gay rights and possibly every bakery owner is anti gay you have the problem of having to waste gas to go out of town to a bigger city to find a pro gay baker. That is very cruel and unfair and also sad they think baking a simple cake is send them to hell. But than you have the argument where should a public business be forced to serve the public. Should a anti gay or pro gay business who prefers to cater to a certain group be allowed to operate a business to the public or forced to own it privately which means they bake cakes probably out of their own home. I am on the fence here but at the same time when your in the minority in lets say a small town it makes for a stronger argument for minority protections and makes for a better argument against this so called religious freedom.

 

But the problem is, this isn't about being refused service (I understand the cakemakers were perfectly willing to bake a cake), its about being refused a specific service.

I'm really not sure how I feel on the latter part - this is a creative industry (like architecture, floristry etc and so I think there should also be some flexibility for choice of artistic expression. These are industries where work can be turned down if it does not fit a clients portfolio, if its too complicated for them, or they do not want the work - I think it is important that this flexibility is protected.

An example on the wedding cake theme Patrick which I think is relevant and I'd like you to consider:

Should a cakemaker be required by law to produce a typical gaudy "Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" cake. After all there is the argument that Irish Travellers, like gay people, are a protected group legally (God knows how that happened, but there we are). What if the bakery felt this sort of cake would give the wrong impression of their business? Should they have the right to refuse?

I would argue hell yes they should. It is their business and if they want to stick to having elegant white cakes then why should the law get involved?

---------- Post added 19th May 2015 at 09:26 AM ----------

I don't think they were.

They were rejecting baking a specific cake. They weren't rejecting the customers point blank. IMO:

-"Get out of my shop, I'm not making a cake for you" - absolutely discriminatory and should face punishment
-"Sorry, I don't feel comfortable baking that specific cake, but I'll bake this as an alternative" - Perfectly reasonable (if perhaps not rational from a business sense as the customer is always right!)

 

I don't agree with legal action in this instance. The two people in question can take their custom elsewhere - it's not their loss ultimately. The business is the one losing custom and they are the ones who will suffer by alienating a large chunk of their potential clientele.

 

I fall on the fence on the issue as well. I think the discrimination is ridiculous but as a small business owner I think I should have the right to refuse service no questions asked. These people who refuse services could beat around the bush (at least here) and simply state they were too busy etc etc and that'd be within their right. I actually appreciate the fact of finding out why places like this refuse service so I know where not to spend my money and where to steer family and friends away from.

However if it is a publicly traded company or a government run business service I think the laws should apply completely.

 

government run yes, but just because its publically traded no. those that invest in that company do so by free will. If they dont approve of the way the money is used, they can choose to invest elsewhere. Government however is funded by taxpayer dollar therefore those investing in it do not have a choice.

but your idea of just steering your family and friends away from the business would be the correct method and the higher road to take.

 

I don't agree with this tbh. I understand suing for discrimination if they refuse you service in a restaurant, refuse service to stay in a hotel etc because they are simple things which don't affect your beliefs, it's simply being kind to people. However, when it comes to things like catering for gay weddings, if it's against your beliefs I don't understand why you should be forced to take part in helping a gay wedding. If that happened to me, I would just find another place to serve me which actually support me.

 

I would have sided with the plaintiffs if they had refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Instead they refused to make a cake which said to support gay weddings, and I have sympathy with not having to produce cakes with political statements with which you disagree.

I believe them that they objected to the cake, not the buyer. The judge's opinion was based on the fact that she didn't believe them.

More to the point, I just wish this verdict could have come a week later. It makes gay people look like bullies, and harms the chances of a Yes result in the Ireland referendum, which is far more important.

And a minor point: they weren't found guilty. They were found liable. It was a civil case, not a criminal one.

 

I sort of hope it does have negative effects in Ireland.
That way the next time a activist gay couple go into a business that the know ahead of time is going to refuse them, they might think about how those exact actions swayed opinion in a negative way elsewhere. Dont worry, the vote will come back up again next time around for the Irish and it would more than likely go through. But the effects from this one situation could open more countries up a whole lot quicker.
sometimes bad is good.

 

Exactly, they were being physically asked take part in the proceedings. If he had gone in and asked for a doughnut and was told 'get out, youre gay' then that would've been different. They refused on the grounds of what the cake was, not because of the person.

If I owned a bakers and someone came in and asked me to bake an SNP or UKIP cake I would invite them to f:***:ck off!

 

This.

Plus a snotty Yelp review or a column in the local paper would probably suffice if the customers in question were truly peeved. It would have the same effect: notifying people who do support gay-rights to boycott said business), anti-gay shop owners would lose business as a result, and then have the option to decide whether to change their minds, apologise or continue cutting their nose off to spite their face.

In cases like these I always think - how would I feel. I'd feel pissed at first, naturally, but at the same time I wouldn't make this a human rights issue, even if there has been some mild "discrimination". Its cake at the end of the day, and with other more-friendly bakers more than willing to provide I wouldn't see that I'd suffered any real loss here. If anything I see this as slightly beneficial - it would mean I'd have the confidence that my money was going to someone who was neutral or positive towards gay rights.