Christian bakery owners did NOT discriminate against customer when they refused to make £36 'Support Gay Marriage' cake says Supreme Court

[TSwizzle]

At last, the case is closed;

The Christian owners of a bakery today won an appeal at Britain's highest court over a finding that they discriminated against a customer by refusing to make a £36.50 'Support Gay Marriage' cake. Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthur family in a unanimous ruling in London today in what is known as the 'gay cake case' The legal action was originally brought against the Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The legal battle has now lasted four-and-a-half years, costing around £500,000.

DailyMail

Gareth Lee is a nasty bigot and I hope has to pay some costs and damages. The deplorables indeed.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

Right. Similarly, if a white man is marrying a black woman and wants that same phrase put on their cake ironically in order to piss off his racist cousins, a baker should be able to refuse him simply because the baker doesn't like the content of the message, regardless of how the message is intended.

Taking that concept to an absurdly illogical extreme, though, what if a baker is asked to write "Happy Birthday, Betty", but his girlfriend Betty had just dumped him the night before and he really doesn't want anyone with that name to have a happy birthday? Is he allowed to refuse that?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

Right. Similarly, if a white man is marrying a black woman and wants that same phrase put on their cake ironically in order to piss off his racist cousins, a baker should be able to refuse him simply because the baker doesn't like the content of the message, regardless of how the message is intended.

Taking that concept to an absurdly illogical extreme, though, what if a baker is asked to write "Happy Birthday, Betty", but his girlfriend Betty had just dumped him the night before and he really doesn't want anyone with that name to have a happy birthday? Is he allowed to refuse that?

I believe he should be allowed to not sell any cakes that say "Betty" on them, provided he posts this policy clearly, alongside all offerings of "birthday cakes", so that people know he does NOT sell "birthday cakes" but rather "birthday cakes which do not contain the name 'Betty'", though if he would sell a cake that has no name where a name would go, he must sell to someone regardless of whether he knows it is going to be filled in with Betty.

 

[abaddon]

Taking that concept to an absurdly illogical extreme, though, what if a baker is asked to write "Happy Birthday, Betty", but his girlfriend Betty had just dumped him the night before and he really doesn't want anyone with that name to have a happy birthday? Is he allowed to refuse that?

Yes. At what point during his employment or business-ownership did he stop being human? He's his own individual, being a shop-owner doesn't turn him into a corporation, government agency, or an abject servant. Should his neuroticism cost him a negative review when the person uses their free speech to describe how he weirded out? Ok. Hopefully, if consumers can stop being like toddlers ("I want it and I want it NOW!"), it'll stop there.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

exactly.

Was anyone expecting a debate on this?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To take it one step further, what if they ask the baker to write an objectionable message, he says no, so they say to just give them a blank cake and a tube of frosting?

He's not being asked to write anything objectionable himself, but he knows that his product will have an objectionable message written on it as soon as they get it home. Would he still be within his rights to refuse them service?

I would lean towards no, since what they do with it after purchase is their own business and not his. However, if they're talking at the wedding about how they got the cake from Tom's Bakery and the cake from his bakery which they're talking about is sitting there with an objectionable message on it, it's giving the impression that he agreed with that message (and also giving the impression that he's unskilled at writing messages with frosting because they probably didn't do a professional job of that).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

exactly.

Was anyone expecting a debate on this?

Wait... cakes don't support gay marriage, people support gay marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To take it one step further, what if they ask the baker to write an objectionable message, he says no, so they say to just give them a blank cake and a tube of frosting?

Didn't those Jewish bakers make this exact offer for the guy buying his son, Adolph, a birthday cake?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To take it one step further, what if they ask the baker to write an objectionable message, he says no, so they say to just give them a blank cake and a tube of frosting?

Didn't those Jewish bakers make this exact offer for the guy buying his son, Adolph, a birthday cake?

I don't know. How many bakers blogs do you think I subscribe to?

 

[Keith&Co.]

To take it one step further, what if they ask the baker to write an objectionable message, he says no, so they say to just give them a blank cake and a tube of frosting?

Didn't those Jewish bakers make this exact offer for the guy buying his son, Adolph, a birthday cake?

I don't know. How many bakers blogs do you think I subscribe to?

I thought it might have come up at your local Tim Horton's at the time...

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

exactly.

Was anyone expecting a debate on this?

Well, clearly there are many (the gay couple and their supporters), including some judges (e.g., the gay couple won in lower court) who don't understand this principle and how it applies. They seem to think that equal treatment of persons means that a business owner can be forced to do any non-criminal thing that any customer asks and that any refusal is "discrimination" against the person's themselves.

Granted, I am sure the bigoted bakers and most of their strong supporters and financial backers would love to be allowed to actually violate the real principle behind discrimination laws and not sell the gays a cake at all. We can and should have laws that prevent those acts of discrimination. But some forms of bigotry cannot be legislated out of existence, without too high a cost to the most basic principles of free thought, free speech, and human liberty.

 

[Toni]

Yes, this sounds like a reasonable ruling. There's a vast difference between making a cake in general and adding a specific message to a cake which you find objectionable.

If the local Nazi group wants a birthday cake, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. If they want me to write "Praise the pure bred union helping to keep the white race from being diluted!" on it, then I should be able to tell them to go and fuck off.

Or, in other words, if one person can pay 35 dollars for a cake with three tiers, white frosting, and hearts all over it, any other person should be able to conduct the same contract, regardless if they are gay or straight, black or white, neofascist or democrat. Neutrality with respect to person.

Right. Similarly, if a white man is marrying a black woman and wants that same phrase put on their cake ironically in order to piss off his racist cousins, a baker should be able to refuse him simply because the baker doesn't like the content of the message, regardless of how the message is intended.

Taking that concept to an absurdly illogical extreme, though, what if a baker is asked to write "Happy Birthday, Betty", but his girlfriend Betty had just dumped him the night before and he really doesn't want anyone with that name to have a happy birthday? Is he allowed to refuse that?

There is always an option of simply not offering any lettering on cakes at all. I have yet to attend a wedding with any message written on it. I've seen stuff on kids' birthday cakes, but not for adults, even when I know for a fact that the cake was baked specifically for a specific person. Heck, when I bake birthday cakes for family, I almost never write anything anymore and if I do, it's generally a very generic: Happy Birthday. Nobody cares at all but then, I bake exceptionally good cakes.

 

[Lion IRC]

A wedding photographer would not be discriminating if they said "No Nudity".
A cake baker who doesn't sell gluten-free isn't discriminating against folks with coeliacs disease.

But it would be anti-religious discrimination if a gay couple refused to eat at Chic Fil-A

 

[laughing dog]

To take it one step further, what if they ask the baker to write an objectionable message, he says no, so they say to just give them a blank cake and a tube of frosting?

Didn't those Jewish bakers make this exact offer for the guy buying his son, Adolph, a birthday cake?

No. Carvel's refused to inscribe the cake, but the family then went to Walmart and go their Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler Campbell cake. (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/child_named_after_adolf_hitler.html)

 

[blastula]

Related to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, there was a Christian guy in Colorado going to bakeries asking for a cake with anti-gay bible verses. One bakery offered him a blank bible cake with frosting, but he still filed a complaint.

 

[Jarhyn]

A wedding photographer would not be discriminating if they said "No Nudity".
A cake baker who doesn't sell gluten-free isn't discriminating against folks with coeliacs disease.

But it would be anti-religious discrimination if a gay couple refused to eat at Chic Fil-A

you are making claims that aren't in contention with regards to gluten-free and nudity restrictions. These are actually corollaries to the claims made in the OP and every poster here since, as far as I have read.

that last part, though, is on-sequitur, and not-even-wrong. In the context of this thread and discussion, "anti-religious discrimination" has a pejorative and ethical implication, an is an act of refusal to treat with someone who has an active role in seeking a service. It is anti-religious discrimination, as corollary to your claim, for a Christian not to visit a Mosque for worship, and that's just plain nonsensical as a claim.

 

[ruby sparks]

Taking that concept to an absurdly illogical extreme, though, what if a baker is asked to write "Happy Birthday, Betty", but his girlfriend Betty had just dumped him the night before and he really doesn't want anyone with that name to have a happy birthday? Is he allowed to refuse that?

Yes.

Ditto even without the name if the baker just objects to anyone being happy.

 

[RavenSky]

A wedding photographer would not be discriminating if they said "No Nudity".
A cake baker who doesn't sell gluten-free isn't discriminating against folks with coeliacs disease.

But it would be anti-religious discrimination if a gay couple refused to eat at Chic Fil-A

You've got that last part backwards...

It would be illegal discrimination if Chic Fil-A refused to serve a gay couple.

No one can force anyone to eat at Chic Fil-A if they don't want to.