Support NeoGAF

[Shanks D Zoro]

At least in the UK, this argument doesn't fly. If you provide a service for the public you must abide by anti-discrimination laws. Precedent has already been set by that couple who ran a B&B, and were found to have illegally discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to let them stay in the same room.

but they are not discriminating against the people who ordered the cake, but rather the nature of the order.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The law is very simple, you cannot discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Nothing the customer asked is outside of the remit of what the company already provides as a service. Its a cake, they make cakes, If a customer asks for a cake they cannot refuse service because either the customer or the cake is gay. Nothing has been asked is any different than any other customers request other than the implied sexuality of a cake.

Why are stating that law enforcement should be left as a function of the marketplace? Why does a business get carte blanche to break the law? As i stated earlier Just like a person cannot choose which aspects of the states statue books apply to them what kind of train of thought, outside those of a market fetishist can be ridden to come to the conclusion that they should have a la carte choice on what aspects of the framework of a state they only need apply to them?

But this is commissioned work. I previously worked as a freelance animator. Are you honestly telling me that I wouldn't be allowed to refuse to work on an advert for a political party I opposed or for an anti-gay marriage group, or any other group that was legal and the contents of the advert legal but with whom I strongly disagreed?

 

[DedValve]

If I'm a poet advertising bespoke poetry, and someone approaches me and asks me to write a poem about Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street doing it, would the ECHR really rule that I'm obliged to write one for you??

It just feels like an odd situation.

Of course not. However if the reason for that is because you are refusing service based on sexuality then you are breaking the law (depending if your area covers same sex rights of course).

 

[Monocle]

I feel like the Bible has a lot to teach us about the moral aspect of decorating cakes with gay muppets.

 

[3Sixty]

Have we taken into account making a cake with a pro gay marriage message on it in a country where gay marriage is not legal is an attempt to cause political unrest in an already politically unstable country?

I just want to make sure we're coving all bases here.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Of course not. However if the reason for that is because you are refusing service based on sexuality then you are breaking the law (depending if your area covers same sex rights of course).

Well then I think we've got our answer here. Just swap 'poem' for 'cake'.

 

[Red Arremer]

The law is very simple, you cannot discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Nothing the customer asked is outside of the remit of what the company already provides as a service. Its a cake, they make cakes, If a customer asks for a cake they cannot refuse service because either the customer or the cake is gay. Nothing has been asked is any different than any other customers request other than the implied sexuality of a cake.

Why are stating that law enforcement should be left as a function of the marketplace? Why does a business get carte blanche to break the law? As i stated earlier Just like a person cannot choose which aspects of the states statue books apply to them what kind of train of thought, outside those of a market fetishist can be ridden to come to the conclusion that they should have a la carte choice on what aspects of the framework of a state they only need apply to them?

OK, so what if instead of a message, the customers asked for them to paint the cake with Ernie and Bert fucking, and their muppet cocks flopping about? Would the bakery still have to fulfill that order? Because the customers are asking for a cake, after all. Nothing is being asked differently from them, either, it's just a cake.

I feel like the motif that is being portrayed is important. If I sell a product that requires some sort of creative process, and a customer wants me to create that product in a shape that I don't want to create, why can the law tell me that there's absolutely no circumstance for me to refuse creating this product? What happened to free choice? Why would I have to be forced into doing that - if don't wanna bake a cake with Hitler dancing in swastika-shaped confetti, or make pottery in the shape of a horse dick? I feel like it's up to the business owner to decide which product they want to make or not.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Bert and Ernie aren't gay

 

[StuKen]

but they are not discriminating against the people who ordered the cake, but rather the nature of the order.

Here we have it folks. The worlds first gay cake. You have attributed sexuality to a cake in order to allow a bigot continue unchallenged. Bravo, astounding level of mental gymnastics there.

 

[3Sixty]

Here we have it folks. The worlds first gay cake. You have attributed sexuality to a cake in order to allow a bigot continue unchallenged. Bravo, astounding level of mental gymnastics there.

 

[Akainu]

Bert and Ernie aren't gay

That's what I'm thinking. Are they even gay? But I guess people can have their yaoi fan-fiction cakes.

 

[Buzzati]

Have we taken into account making a cake with a pro gay marriage message on it in a country where gay marriage is not legal is an attempt to cause political unrest in an already politically unstable country?

I just want to make sure we're coving all bases here.

One gay cake order away from rioting...Shit. Sounds like a good post apocalyptic movie.

 

[gerg]

Different situation. They were refuse because they were gay, not the case here when it's the cake that's the issue rather than the people.

but they are not discriminating against the people who ordered the cake, but rather the nature of the order.

These are fair points. I just think the matter is more complicated than "their business, their rules".

 

[BocoDragon]

The law is very simple, you cannot discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Nothing the customer asked is outside of the remit of what the company already provides as a service. Its a cake, they make cakes, If a customer asks for a cake they cannot refuse service because either the customer or the cake is gay. Nothing has been asked is any different than any other customers request other than the implied sexuality of a cake.

Why are stating that law enforcement should be left as a function of the marketplace? Why does a business get carte blanche to break the law? As i stated earlier Just like a person cannot choose which aspects of the states statue books apply to them what kind of train of thought, outside those of a market fetishist can be ridden to come to the conclusion that they should have a la carte choice on what aspects of the framework of a state they only need apply to them?

I said "putting aside whether or not they should be legally obliged", and you talk of legal obligation.

Yeah I know. This should be illegal. I was saying that even so, these fools'll be buried in the marketplace.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Their company, their decision.

No problem with this.

But where do we draw the line - is it okay for them to refuse to serve the English, or black people or Jews? Discrimination is still discrimination, and I hope if they're going to be this narrow-minded and bigoted that they lose a lot of custom in the process.

 

[Masquerader]

Woo, Northern Ireland!

Although I'm surprised they were so vague as to refer to them as 'Christian'. That can mean a lot of things over here, really.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Bert and Ernie aren't gay

Sayeth the Lord.

Here we have it folks. The worlds first gay cake. You have attributed sexuality to a cake in order to allow a bigot continue unchallenged. Bravo, astounding level of mental gymnastics there.

Bah? I think you're struggling to understand. The point isn't that the cake is gay but rather that the message on the cake is one that the bakery doesn't support. We have no reason to think that the bakery would have refused to serve them had they asked for, say, a Bert and Ernie cake with no further message. That's why it's different to the B&B case previously mentioned, and why there are so many "OK, but what if..." examples in the thread - having a "gay message" doesn't afford the message any more protection. They wouldn't be obligated to create a cake with a Swastika and the words "I <3 Nazis" either.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

But where do we draw the line - is it okay for them to refuse to serve the English, or black people or Jews? Discrimination is still discrimination, and I hope if they're going to be this narrow-minded and bigoted that they lose a lot of custom in the process.

I think there's quite a few posts in here conflating "refusing to serve gays" and "refusing to make a specific cake".

If I wanted a cake with the text "Norn Irn is shit, England 4eva" and they refused to make it, I wouldn't claim that they were "refusing to serve the English".

If I went in the shop and ordered a generic cake and said "I'm English, by the way", and they refused to serve me, then I'd make that claim. As far as I can tell, an analogous thing hasn't happened here.

 

[damisa]

I think a private business should be able to discriminate for any reason as long as something like health is not involved. I wouldn't shop there and I would hope they go out of business, but I don't think you should be able to force someone to provide a non vital service

 

[Marco1]

It will be interesting to see what comes of this as I love ashers bakery.
After O'Haras ceased trading we will have nowhere else to go.
But I need to ask that if a Muslim or Roman Catholic bakery didn't make a cake that went against their beliefs would they get the same headline and treatment in N.Ireland?
It seems Christians are getting an awful time here at the moment.
Maybe Enoch Powell was right.
Edit: I think I will accept my ban thank you .

 

[Senator Soufflé]

Northern Ireland might be a sectarian shithole

Ah so you've visited us then?

I don't see why their own beliefs have to come into the equation in this. Someone asks you to do a job, you do it, get paid then forget about it. Will they burn in hell for supplying a blasphemous cake?

 

[Buzzati]

Sayeth the Lord.



Bah? I think you're struggling to understand. The point isn't that the cake is gay but rather that the message on the cake is one that the bakery doesn't support. We have no reason to think that the bakery would have refused to serve them had they asked for, say, a Bert and Ernie cake with no further message. That's why it's different to the B&B case previously mentioned, and why there are so many "OK, but what if..." examples in the thread - having a "gay message" doesn't afford the message any more protection. They wouldn't be obligated to create a cake with a Swastika and the words "I <3 Nazis" either.

The owners of the bakery can deny making something that they feel is inappropriate that isn't protected by discrimination law.

Remember this case? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...-leader-denied-shoprite-cake-article-1.358050

 

[gerg]

Bah? I think you're struggling to understand. The point isn't that the cake is gay but rather that the message on the cake is one that the bakery doesn't support. We have no reason to think that the bakery would have refused to serve them had they asked for, say, a Bert and Ernie cake with no further message. That's why it's different to the B&B case previously mentioned, and why there are so many "OK, but what if..." examples in the thread - having a "gay message" doesn't afford the message any more protection. They wouldn't be obligated to create a cake with a Swastika and the words "I <3 Nazis" either.

No, but that's because our society has decided that being gay is not an immoral thing, while being a Nazi is.

And, yes, in the process of crafting laws in such a society that does mean that someone's particular beliefs are going to be trampled, but, in that case, keep up.

 

[Patryn]

The law is very simple, you cannot discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Nothing the customer asked is outside of the remit of what the company already provides as a service. Its a cake, they make cakes, If a customer asks for a cake they cannot refuse service because either the customer or the cake is gay. Nothing has been asked is any different than any other customers request other than the implied sexuality of a cake.

Why are stating that law enforcement should be left as a function of the marketplace? Why does a business get carte blanche to break the law? As i stated earlier Just like a person cannot choose which aspects of the states statue books apply to them what kind of train of thought, outside those of a market fetishist can be ridden to come to the conclusion that they should have a la carte choice on what aspects of the framework of a state they only need apply to them?

However, the bakery says that it has refused previous requests for cakes with designs that they didn't agree with, and nothing that they've said has indicated that they're unwilling to make any cake for these customers, they just have issue with this specific cake.

It's entirely possible that they'd refuse to make ANY cake for this person, but surely you can see a difference between refusal to make ANY cake and refusal to make a SPECIFIC cake?

 

[teruterubozu]

Bert and Ernie aren't gay

They're asexual.

 

[Shanks D Zoro]

Here we have it folks. The worlds first gay cake. You have attributed sexuality to a cake in order to allow a bigot continue unchallenged. Bravo, astounding level of mental gymnastics there.

You missed my point completely.

They are not refusing to serve them because they are gay, but are refusing to support the message.

I as a straight guy could go and ask for the same cake and would still be turned down because they don't agree with the message.

 

[UncleSporky]

They're asexual.

Their totality of existence is defined with mens' hands up their asses.

 

[StuKen]

OK, so what if instead of a message, the customers asked for them to paint the cake with Ernie and Bert fucking, and their muppet cocks flopping about? Would the bakery still have to fulfill that order? Because the customers are asking for a cake, after all. Nothing is being asked differently from them, either, it's just a cake.

I feel like the motif that is being portrayed is important. If I sell a product that requires some sort of creative process, and a customer wants me to create that product in a shape that I don't want to create, why can the law tell me that there's absolutely no circumstance for me to refuse creating this product? What happened to free choice? Why would I have to be forced into doing that - if don't wanna bake a cake with Hitler dancing in swastika-shaped confetti, or make pottery in the shape of a horse dick? I feel like it's up to the business owner to decide which product they want to make or not.

Terrible straw man. Not far of if we allow men to marry we will all be fucking dogs in 5 years. Blatant sexual imagery comes nowhere under the remit of any anti discrimination legislation.

As for the commissioned work angle I think we need to look at the scale of this bakery's operation. They have multiple branches and not a small operation. No aspect of the order could be considered putting an undue strain on the rest of the operations ability to perform a significant aspect of its operations. This is a cake, one of which they produce hundreds of in a single working day. The only difference is that the depiction on of the cake is something that the owners are offended by but unfortunately the law doesnt allow them to act against.

 

[Yrael]

Hmmm...I've seen a lot of people elsewhere arguing that although a baker shouldn't turn away a customer for their sexual orientation, it's still always the baker's right to refuse to bake a cake featuring a design that they disapprove of, no exceptions. After all, they'd be within their right to refuse something with, say, a racist slogan on it, and there are few who'd argue against that.

However, forgetting about the racist slogan analogy (I don't much like the equivalence being drawn between support for gay marriage and hate speech) and looking at it from a different angle...I wonder if people would feel the same way if the bakers had refused to bake a cake that simply featured an image of a black person on it? Would they then feel that customers would be justified in pursuing legal action on the basis of racist discrimination?

 

[CyclopsRock]

No, but that's because our society has decided that being gay is not an immoral thing, while being a Nazi is.

And, yes, in the process of crafting laws in such a society that does mean that someone's particular beliefs are going to be trampled, but, in that case, keep up.

Nope. That's not how it works. Change Nazi for Sinn Fein if you like, though it doesn't make any difference. Sinn Fein are a legitimate party. They have seats in the Westminster parliament (though they don't actually do anything there). They are also the political arm of the IRA who have killed and maimed a lot of people, committed terrorist attacks and nail-bombed their way through a chunk of pubs. "Society" has deemed fit to send their representatives to parliament, and the law certainly doesn't prohibit their existence nor their campaigning for votes. Would a protestant (or, hell, just a loyalist of any religion or none at all) be obligated to create their political propaganda of a cake? Would a printing company in Belfast be forced to run their leaflets? A hotel obligated to host their annual conference?

 

[Marco1]

Or maybe this gay couple asked Ashers to make the cake knowing if would be refused so they could bump up their campaign.
Ashers are well known to be a Christian company in N.Ireland.
What better headline than to come off after the couple with the B&B and Pastor McConnell's comments.

 

[Two Words]

Discrimination defense force is on the ball today. Anyway, no people you cant discriminate based on arbitrary personal standards. That's one of the costs of doing business that one must deal with when you want to function in a modern society that has the capacity to enforce the contracts also essential to carrying out said business.

Eh, they aren't refusing to serve a person. They are refusing to make a certain cake. Why shouldn't they have the right to refuse a certain creation request?

Terrible straw man. Not far of if we allow men to marry we will all be fucking dogs in 5 years. Blatant sexual imagery comes nowhere under the remit of any anti discrimination legislation.

As for the commissioned work angle I think we need to look at the scale of this bakery's operation. They have multiple branches and not a small operation. No aspect of the order could be considered putting an undue strain on the rest of the operations ability to perform a significant aspect of its operations. This is a cake, one of which they produce hundreds of in a single working day. The only difference is that the depiction on of the cake is something that the owners are offended by but unfortunately the law doesnt allow them to act against.

What if they wanted a Nazi cake? I'm not sure what the laws are in Ireland, so for arguments' sake, let's move this to Anerica. How would you feel if a bakery refused to make a Nazi cake because they thought the Nazi's views are evil? Now you are allowed to be a neo-nazi in America, assuming you don't break any actual crimes. So shouldn't the bakery be forced to not discriminate?




I still think you are confusing discriminating people with discriminating a request. It's different.

 

[Kinyou]

Lets be honest here. I give that marriage 2 months at best

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I find the notion of the law forcing a business to create a unique product for a customer to be troubling. There is effectively no bargained for exchange at that point. I don't think the judicial system is the appropriate solution to this particular scenario, let the local market sort that out.

 

[Zelias]

Or maybe this gay couple asked Ashers to make the cake knowing if would be refused so they could bump up their campaign.
Ashers are well known to be a Christian company in N.Ireland.
What better headline than to come off after the couple with the B&B and Pastor McConnell's comments.

Or maybe they just wanted a cake.

 

[Jenenser]

And again, we come back to would this be okay if they refused the business of a black or interracial couple because the business owners didn't like black people or thought interracial marriage was wrong?

"My beliefs, are my beliefs" - Discrimination against homosexuality is the only discrimination I hear this argument for. We don't let racism or sexism fly for the same excuse.

so if i have a bakery, and a nazi wants a swastikacake, i have to make it for them?
if they wan't a giant penis in form of a cake i have to make it for them?

its the bakery's loss in proift, just go to another one.

 

[Buzzati]

You missed my point completely.

They are not refusing to serve them because they are gay, but are refusing to support the message.

I as a straight guy could go and ask for the same cake and would still be turned down because they don't agree with the message.

This is not an easy case. The message has to be deemed appropriate by the bakery. I assume they would use the same standard of appropriateness as they would use a straight couple. IE: "Hurray for gay marriage!" / "Hurray for marriage!"

If they would not make a cake with a message that they would otherwise make for a straight couple, then it seems like discrimination. If you, as a straight man, went to order the cake that says "Hurray for gay marriage!" and they thought you were gay because of it, despite you being straight, it would still be discrimination. IE: If they thought you were ordering and picking it up for a gay person, etc.


The hard part is when a question comes up asking for the appropriateness of the discrimination itself. What if "I believe in homosexuality!" was on the cake? What if they don't find putting core beliefs about sexual preference on a cake appropriate?

 

[GeordieMark]

I don't know, I just can't get outraged at this.

I mean, isn't there a difference between "we won't serve gays" and "we won't make this bespoke cake to your specific design"? Would there still be a human rights issue if they would be willing to sell them a plain cake?

Agreed. They aren't saying they won't serve gay people, just that they can't advocate gay marriage due to their religious beliefs..

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a muslim bakery refused to make a pig cake for someone on religious grounds. I could understand that too.

Where does the law stand on things like this when the reason for refusal is due to religious belief?

 

[gerg]

Nope. That's not how it works. Change Nazi for Sinn Fein if you like, though it doesn't make any difference. Sinn Fein are a legitimate party. They have seats in the Westminster parliament (though they don't actually do anything there). They are also the political arm of the IRA who have killed and maimed a lot of people, committed terrorist attacks and nail-bombed their way through a chunk of pubs. "Society" has deemed fit to send their representatives to parliament, and the law certainly doesn't prohibit their existence nor their campaigning for votes. Would a protestant (or, hell, just a loyalist of any religion or none at all) be obligated to create their political propaganda of a cake? Would a printing company in Belfast be forced to run their leaflets? A hotel obligated to host their annual conference?

Edit: My response made no sense. I should come back to this on more sleep.

 

[Carl]

Their company, their decision.

No problem with this.

Yup, came here to say this.

 

[Marco1]

Does a plumber have the right to not fix a toilet in a house owned by a married gay couple?

 

[Chopper]

I can't believe it took so long.

Anyway, Shitty company. Fuck em.

 

[markot]

Um... it is saying it wont serve gay people...

I like how people are twisting this so much.

I guess if an inter racial couple wanted a black and white cake and they were refused, that would be fine too cause the cake was the issue, not the 'person behind it'?

You dont have the religous freedom to discriminate against other people. Or their cakes.

There a reason religous beliefs are allowed to screw over other people? Keep your shit up your own ass and leave the general public alone. Religous freedom isnt about being allowed to discriminate. If it is, then why should that freedom over ride the freedom other people have to not be screwed by someones religous mentalitis? Dont want to serve the public? dont open a shop open to the public.

 

[LostCaress]

Since when are private shops not required to follow the law? Maybe in libertarian paradise Somalia, but in most western countries having a private shop doesn't exempt you from certain laws. You're using public facilities to access your shop, government protection (against crime, fires, military protection, etc...), there's no such thing as "do whatever you want on your premises"

 

[blame space]

how gay of a wedding cake are we talking?

 

[Mango The Magician]

I'm gonna have to side with the business. They're not refusing to make a cake for the couple just refusing to use the specific design.

 

[Two Words]

Does a plumber have the right to not fix a toilet in a house owned by a married gay couple?

There is a difference between refusing to service a person and refusing to fulfill a particular request. A plumber can go to any house, gay, straight, black, white, whatever, see the request, and determine it's not worth doing. Maybe the plumber is asked to make the faucets look like floppy penises or whatever and determines the work isn't worth it. Maybe their bathroom is a complete clusterfuck and refused to fulfill that order because it's not worth it. He's not a slave to demands. He can say no to a request.

 

[Shanks D Zoro]

This is not an easy case. The message has to be deemed appropriate by the bakery. I assume they would use the same standard of appropriateness as they would use a straight couple. IE: "Hurray for gay marriage!" / "Hurray for marriage!"

If they would not make a cake with a message that they would otherwise make for a straight couple, then it seems like discrimination. If you, as a straight man, went to order the cake that says "Hurray for gay marriage!" and they thought you were gay because of it, despite you being straight, it would still be discrimination. IE: If they thought you were ordering and picking it up for a gay person, etc.

yes if they thought I was gay and refused to make me any cake. But it seems that it is just this one particular cake. If they refused to serve the customer anything at all then it would be discriminatory.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd argue that the change (in the hypothetical) from a Nazi-affiliated organisation to the Sinn Fein is where the difference lies, however. The point is in what is "legitimate".

(I am very tired at the moment, so my brain may be working less effectively than normal.)

Well, being in a Nazi-affiliated organisation isn't illegal in and of itself (Though obviously some of their activities could be) and nor is advertising it, so I'm not sure where the distinction lies. The point, surely, is that one shouldn't be obligated to use their labour to further the aims of something they disagree with, whether it's a political party, support of a particular policy, support of a certain football team even. Whether the guy is right to oppose it is, really, neither here nor there (and I'd point out that gay marriage isn't even legal in Northern Ireland).

 

[Two Words]

Um... it is saying it wont serve gay people...

I like how people are twisting this so much.

I guess if an inter racial couple wanted a black and white cake and they were refused, that would be fine too cause the cake was the issue, not the 'person behind it'?

You dont have the religous freedom to discriminate against other people. Or their cakes.

There a reason religous beliefs are allowed to screw over other people? Keep your shit up your own ass and leave the general public alone. Religous freedom isnt about being allowed to discriminate. If it is, then why should that freedom over ride the freedom other people have to not be screwed by someones religous mentalitis? Dont want to serve the public? dont open a shop open to the public.

Can the baker refuse to make a swastika cake? A KKK cake? A "I'm so happy 9/11 happened!" cake? All of these views are legal to have because thoughts alone are not crimes in the US.

Refusing a design isn't the same as refusing to serve a person.