LGBT News Northern Ireland bakery guilty of discrimination

Good post Marty! The problem with bringing in laws to tip the balance slightly more in favour of religion is that it's very easy to get wrong. If you make it too vague like 'any service can be declined' it could potentially mean a paramedic could refuse to treat a dying gay man or a checkout assistant . If it's too specific it costs a lot of time and money and will only be used very very rarely.

If I went to a Muslim bakery and asked them for bacon rolls for my gay wedding would they be allowed to refuse? It's always interesting to see peoples reactions when you flip the scenario onto another minority.

 

If a Muslim bakery sells bacon rolls to straight people, then no they would not be allowed to refuse. If they are not selling bacon rolls at all, then you can't compel them to provide a service that they don't provide. No more than you can go to a Grocery Store and demand an oil change.

The problem is NOT that they are refusing a service to gay people, it's the fact that they are providing a service to straight people, and then refusing that same service to gay people. That's discrimination, and that is what they are not allowed to do.

By the way a similar issue as you brought up here actually happened. I believe it involved a Jewish deli that sold pork. However, they only gave the pork to non-Jews, and refused to give it to Jews. Someone who was Jewish sued and they won. This was in New York City, I believe.

 

I just want to point out that the cake in this case wasn't for a gay wedding but for an anti-homophobia and anti-transphobia event in Belfast. So the argument that they would have provided the same service for straight people sort of falls flat.

 

Unless they also provide cakes for similar events.

The core of their argument was rooted in their religious belief. That is not a valid argument.

I've already illustrated why that is not a valid argument:

The fact of the matter is the reason they refused to make this cake was based in discrimination against gay people. Period. They are not even contesting that fact. They are just saying, "religious exemption!" As if the fact that they believe their religion tells them that it's okay to discriminate against gay people should grant them a special exemption. No.

 

My point is that many people are thinking this was a wedding cake - something the bakery would have more than certainly baked for a straight couple, which would've proved discrimination against the gay customer. But it isn't as simple as that. They didn't approve of the gay-friendly message on the cake due to religious beliefs and didn't want their product with their name on it at an anti-homophobia event. That's why the whole argument is so divisive. I still agree with the outcome of the case as my earlier comments show but you have to keep in mind the facts before you start arguing them.

 

I don't disagree with your points at all-the discrimination is completely abhorrent. I wonder tho how many would have their opinion remain the same if it was a bakery owned by a couple who wanted a cake made to celebrate same sex marriage not going through in their area?

I understand the slippery slope of the arguments I've made as I've been in too many situations where laws like this could severely altar my life and the lives of people I've employeed.

At least where I am as an owner I've got the right to refuse service to anyone and I'm not sure if that is something that is the same elsewhere. I can decide not to cater an event because I simply don't get along with the customer, I can refuse to serve a customer for a variety of reasons. Now none of the reasons that I'd have would ever be on things such as orientation, religion etc but the worry that my non discrimatory reasons for not doing business with someone could land me in hot water because of their orientation or religion worries me. I'd like to live in a world where I can just think someone's a jerk regardless of their skin colour, orientation or religion.

I've had friends who have shared stories of the situations they dealt with being discriminated based on their skin colour, sexism and witnessed some myself, some echo my feelings some don't.

I believe the intent of the laws in place are honourable and most of the reasons they are in place likely aren't brought into the news as they'd make it much more cut and dry then things like this.

 

The bold and underlined part is the most important thing that everyone needs to keep in mind. They themselves said the only reason they refused was based on their religious beliefs, which are obviously bigoted and discriminatory. They are not arguing that they aren't discriminating, they are arguing that they have the right to discriminate because, you know, Jesus.

That's not an argument or a defense.

Had they made the argument, 'Hey look, we have no problem with gay people. We just didn't want to make a cake about such a politically charged issue, because we didn't want our Bakery to be seen taking sides in this debate. We feared that it might cost us customers.'

They likely would have won that argument, even if the truth behind it is that they were bigots who hate gay people.

If anyone is accused of discrimination and is in court, and the best defense you have is, "Yes, I discriminated against them, but it's okay because of Jesus." Then you deserve to lose, because you are admitting guilt.

When it comes to political situations like this, they are easy to solve. All you really have to say is that you don't want your business to be associated with this or that political cause or activity.

The problem with this particular business is that they were not arguing that point. They were arguing that because they were Christians, they don't believe that gay people should get married, and therefore did not want to support the event.

In other words, they were admitting guilt. They were saying, "Yes, I discriminated against them, because of my religious beliefs." You can't go into court, admit guilt, and then expect to win your case.

All they would have had to do to get out of making this cake, was to say, 'Hey look. We don't want to get involved in this political argument one way or another. It could hurt our business if we are dragged into this. That's why we didn't make the cake.'

Then so long as they were not making cakes for the anti-gay folks, they would have been fine. They would have been treating everyone equally, and their objection would seem reasonable. It would have nothing to do with discrimination, because their religion isn't involved. It's just that they didn't want their business associated with a very public active campaign.

They likely would have won their case, because they would not have admitted any guilt, and so the proof that the other side would have had to bring would have been very difficult. Discrimination cases are infamously hard to prove. They are very easy to prove when you admit that you are discriminating, as this business did.

Now, I realize that some people will immediately jump up and say, "Hey Aldrick, what about pro-gay marriage bakeries that make cakes that support pro-gay causes. Do they then have to make cakes for anti-gay causes too?" The answer to that is simple: No.

Why is the answer to that so simple? Because in order to file a discrimination case, you have to be a protected minority group. Gay people can't file discrimination cases in places where we don't have protection. Anti-gay groups, like other hate groups, don't have protection. Thus we are free to discriminate against them. The only thing you have to worry about is how you go about it, because they might be able to claim religious discrimination, as religion is often a protected group as well.

If you are not discriminating then you don't have anything to worry about. Understand, that when people go to court, they actually have to prove their case. People can't just show up, cry discrimination, and win. The burden of proof falls on them, and in most cases it is extremely hard to prove.

...except in cases such as this one, in which they openly admit that they are discriminating, but claiming that they have the right to do that because of their religion. It is very easy to win a case when the people you are accusing of discrimination admit their guilt.

 

Theres no place in this world for discrimination and they are clearly discriminating against gay people. These bakers are just using religion as an excuse to exercise it. The ruling in this case is correct in my opinion because if you changed the word gay to any other group of people whether is be their race, condition, hell even their height the whole world would be erupting. Like I have said before even though we now have laws protecting us, scratch the surface and the hatred against us is there still in far too many people.

 

Yes... I know :lol: I'm just pointing out that it wasn't a wedding cake as so many people perceived it to be and that this case was a bit more complicated. I'm happy with the outcome.

 

I wonder, I know where there is a gay owned and operated bakery around here,
I might go in and ask for pricing on a decorated cake for an anti-gay marriage function, some fake family values entity or something. If they deny me, maybe I can make a couple hundred grand on this. Sweeeet..

Maybe not, I dont think Im a big enough asshole to target a business in that manner just to make a point.

 

To be honest I'm mixed about stuff like this. On the one hand, should you force people to do something they're not comfortable with?; on the other, should you have (possibly) discriminatory views in the first place?

 

What if say a Muslim went to a Christian owned bakery and asked for a cake proclaiming Allah to be the one true God. Whose rights would be trumped? Would the cakeshop owner be forced to make the cake - based on this ruling it appears so.

And going back to my earlier example, (which I'm sad nobody has picked up and debated ) - what about over the top Irish Traveller cakes - are cake shop owners forced to bake these. As, afterall, they are arguably a recognised "tradition" of a group with protected legal status - much like the rainbow flag is a recognised symbol for gay people.

And on this theme does this ruling mean dressmakers have to produce your typical Irish Traveller wedding dresses even if they might disagree with the aesthetic?

Plus there is the whole factor that if you are having your cake baked by someone who is only begrudgingly doing so because the law says the bakers are probably not going to put their heart and soul into it - and that would be pretty impossible to prove in a court of law as "discrimination".

Ultimately I'd ask - whilst the idea of this discrimination being prevented is nice, do people honestly believe this ensures "equal service" is now provided - of course it doesn't, as nobody likes to be forced into doing work they don't want; particularly not small business owners in a creative industry.

 

This thread is baking me sad.

 

No one should be forced to do what they consider sin.

 

I can think of limits that might need to be imposed on various things.

 

What if I consider it a sin to pay taxes? What if I consider it a sin to not do human or animal sacrifice? There obviously have to be limits on your statement.

Also like I said earlier, if a Christian baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple is considered participating in a same sex marriage, why isn't a Christian gun shop owner selling an AR-15 to a guy who goes and kills people with it considered them participating in a murder?

 

Your first point is a really good point-in the end people like this are pretty dumb (aside from the obvious stupidity in their bigotry) and I suspect there are still numerous business worldwide where a minority is given some sort of run around as to why they can't do business with them-personally I'd rather erase any doubt about why they're refusing service so I can get that word out.

As for the second part thankfully I live in an area where if it's a civil suit and the person filing loses they'd have to cover my Legal fees but if it were to drag me to court in a criminal manner even if the truth came out I'd still be on the hook for an awful lot of money which would not only cost me but cost jobs...I get that's a slippery slope.

 

I'm more concerned why you would be contemplating harming your own community, whether or not you are successful.

Should someone employed at a pharmacy be forced to provide birth control to those who ask for it, if they have a religious objection to birth control as some Catholics do? What about nurses and doctors who are Jehovah's Witnesses and their opposition to blood transfusions? Where should we draw the line as a society?

I draw the line clearly: It is a religious persons responsibility to act in accordance to their beliefs, and society as a whole is not required to look for ways to conform around them. If you don't want to make cakes for gay people, don't be a baker. If you don't want to give blood transfusions, don't be a nurse or a doctor. If you don't want to give out birth control, don't take jobs that would have that requirement of you. If you do these things, then society will reasonably expect you to actually provide those services. Then, if you engage in discriminatory practices while acting in accordance with your beliefs, society will further penalize you.

The line I draw is a clear one. It is the line that any society that wishes to be both secular and pluralistic should be drawing.

I defer to Martin's post, as I am confident he is correct legally speaking. However, I will answer your question with my personal opinion.

Regarding the Christian baker and the Muslim, the answer would be yes if the baker is making cakes for other religious people. The baker wouldn't be required to make a hate-cake, for example, denouncing Christianity as a false religion. However, it is perfectly reasonable that a Muslim may wish a cake for some religious function, and if the baker is providing cakes for other religious functions, he can't deny a reasonable request. It's a bit like a Christian baker making cakes for Christian religious functions, then refusing to make a cake for a Jewish bar mitzvah.

You need to look at it from a secular point of view. The government is supposed to be secular and pluralistic. Was the request reasonable? Was it intended to be inflammatory? It's common sense.

Businesses are not people, and thus should not be treated that way. This means that a business cannot have a religious preference, even if the owners do. They have to serve the entire general public. If they want to deny service they must provide a reasonable restriction that applies to everyone equally, and the restriction must be something that everyone can reasonably comply with.

This is fair to everyone, and protects the Christian as well, as they may wish to do business with Muslims. This is how a secular and pluralistic society operates.

The same applies to both the Irish Traveller situations. If you want to deny service then you must provide a reasonable restriction that applies to everyone equally, and the restriction must be something that everyone can reasonably comply with. You cannot single out Irish Travellers for denial of service, but offer similar or identical services to everyone else.

I actually don't disagree with this at all. My personal preference is that I would only want someone I know who was 100% behind my wedding baking the cake. I'd purposefully hunt down a gay owned bakery. First, because I would want people who could understand, on a personal level, the importance of my celebration. I don't think heterosexuals could understand the significance, or feel as deeply about it since they were not the ones who suffered and had their rights denied to them. Being able to legally have a gay wedding is a big fucking deal, and I would want everyone I worked with in planning and preparing for it to understand the significance of what is happening, and how many people never lived to see the day. Second, I would want to keep my money within the community. I would feel good and better knowing that my money was going to support other people in the community, especially since weddings are such a huge expense.

However, it's not about what I would personally choose. It's about what people should be allowed to do legally. I do not believe that people should be able to discriminate against us. Unless a bakery is advertising as a "Heterosexual Only" baker, the reality is most people aren't going to know until they get refused.

Imagine that. You are living your life, you are preparing for what is supposed to be a joyful time, you go to one of the best bakeries that you know to get your wedding cake. Then you get told that they won't serve you. How humiliating is that? What type of dark cloud does that draw over the entire event? What is supposed to be one of the most important events of your life gets forever marred by this hateful act, like a little stain that can never be fully washed away.

I'm obviously not a baker, and I am sure as hell not a Christian. However, I'd make wedding cakes for Christians, even if I knew they were taking vile vows such as the bride pledging to obey and/or submit to her husband. While I find the very act of making such a vow absolutely vile and sexist, I would have enough respect for them to make them their cake, and not try and stain their celebration with my personal feelings and opinion. I would do this because, as a business, I would be obligated to serve the general public. Christians are part of the general public. It's not my place to judge their celebration, it's my place to make their damn cake. I can certainly vocalize my opinion on the matter in a more appropriate setting. It does not infringe upon my rights, because when I went into business I agreed to serve everyone, not just the people who shared my values.

---------- Post added 20th May 2015 at 05:47 PM ----------

So you think Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to refuse people a life saving blood transfusion? You also think that someone who is Catholic should be able to deny people access to birth control?

There are obviously going to be limits somewhere in your statement. The question is where you draw the line, and why you draw the line where you do.