Baker in 'gay marriage' cake row

[JohnR! 5,495]

We're good!

Clears it up, thanks.

[Operator 1,927]

We're good!

So is the cake!!!!!!!!!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Granted my background is in the law of England and Wales, which is separate from that of Northern Ireland (and please note: the law of Ireland is not at question here), but this is ground that I am a little familiar with. The relevant secondary legislation which gave effect to law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services (including baking cakes) is the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006. These regulations prohibit exactly the sort of activity the bakers are participating in.

Handy, easy-to-read guide with lots of examples here: http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Individuals/Shortguidetosexualorientationlaw2011.pdf

[southcoast 27]

These bakers need to follow whatever public accommodation laws exist in Northern Ireland. However, something tells me that this couple knew the reaction they would get before they walked into the bakery.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But they didn't refuse them service because they were gay, they refused to perform a certain service for them due to their religious beliefs towards homosexuality. Muslims have been mentioned in this thread so I'll stick with that for another example. What if someone walked into a bakery owned by Muslims and asked for a cake made with pork, do the Muslim bakery owners have the right to refuse to perform that service? I think they do, but they do not have the right to refuse to make a cake that they do offer based on the customers religious beliefs.

How do you know? The issue is that the cake had a message on it that endorsed gay marriage, do we know that the baker wouldn't have had the same issue with the customer if it didn't have that message on it?

I'm not sure I understand why baking and selling the cake brings the baker into conflict with their religious beliefs. They could sell the cake and still have their beliefs. The act of serving a customer doesn't bring the two into conflict.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regarding the Muslim example - a Muslim butcher wouldn't stock pork to sell (my guess), as opposed to stocking it but then refusing to sell to certain customers. Its not really the same.

[Teddy B 17,252]

How do you know? The issue is that the cake had a message on it that endorsed gay marriage, do we know that the baker wouldn't have had the same issue with the customer if it didn't have that message on it?

I'm not sure I understand why baking and selling the cake brings the baker into conflict with their religious beliefs. They could sell the cake and still have their beliefs. The act of serving a customer doesn't bring the two into conflict.

Because the story would have been written completely different. It would have stated that they were refused service because they were gay, the story doesn't say that. It states that the baker refused to make a cake with a gay slogan.

Regarding the Muslim example - a Muslim butcher wouldn't stock pork to sell (my guess), as opposed to stocking it but then refusing to sell to certain customers. Its not really the same.

I disagree, you're splitting hairs. A cake is a cake. I'm sure there would be no problem requesting a cake be baked with a special ingredient if that ingredient fell within the owners beliefs. Special orders are catered to all the time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because the story would have been written completely different. It would have stated that they were refused service because they were gay, the story doesn't say that. It states that the baker refused to make a cake with a gay slogan.

Sure I understand that - but the underlying reason that they refused service is because they disagreed with the values of the customer. As a result, the customer was unfairly disadvantaged from purchasing goods and services in line with the equality law.

If the baker clearly felt strongly enough that they decided to stand up for their views. IMO that does indeed call into question what they would have done in a slightly different circumstance. I'm totally open to the idea that the customer was a 'gay activist' and may have deliberately chosen to target this baker for malicious reasons. Not to mention that there are reasons why someone would reasonably refuse service to someone, if that person behaved abusively towards them (for example).

The issue for me is that the baker elavated what should have been a simple business transaction into taking a soapbox platform for their views with a view to disparaging what the customer believed in. That is wrong IMO.

The law in question is quite clear on this point:

Goods, facilities or services

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 outlaw discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities or services which are available to the public or a section of the public – this includes refusal of a service or the provision of a lower standard of service. Discrimination of this kind is

unlawful whether the service provided is paid for or not.

Examples include:

• access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter;
• accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;
• facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance;
• facilities for education;
• facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;
• facilities for transport or travel; and
• the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority.

Example – a same-sex couple reserve a double room in a hotel. When they arrive and go to the hotel reception to check in, they are told that the hotel will not provide a same-sex couple with a double room because this might cause offence to other customers. This is discrimination.

Example – a department store provides a gift registration service for couples planning to marry. They refuse to offer a similar service to same-sex couples planning a civil partnership. This is discrimination.

The SO Regulations apply to discrimination by those who provide goods, facilities or services to the public and do not apply where the transaction is of a purely private nature, for example, entertainment or refreshment provided to members of a genuinely private small club.

I disagree, you're splitting hairs. A cake is a cake. I'm sure there would be no problem requesting a cake be baked with a special ingredient if that ingredient fell within the owners beliefs. Special orders are catered to all the time.

Splitting hairs is a VJ speciality, but I don't think it's the same.

A muslim butcher simply doesn't include meat as part of their business and most people know that if you want bacon, pork or ham that if you go to a Kosher or Halal place to buy it you are going to be $hit out of luck.

IMO there's a big difference between running a business that clearly doesn't sell certain types of products and being expected to change your business to accomodate a customer's special request Vs. running a business that provides the same products to everyone and refusing to sell to them because you disagree with the customer's values.

Getting hung up on the analogy of cake is a mistake IMO - since if we were really making an appropriate comparison - it might be a Jewish baker refusing service to someone who wanted a cake that said 'Destroy Israel' on it. Then the issue would be that the business owner was dealing with bigoted views that are insulting to them (i.e. a reasonable justification for refusal of service), rather than gay marriage which isn't offensive to anyone (in and of itself).

[Teddy B 17,252]

Sure I understand that - but the underlying reason that they refused service is because they disagreed with the values of the customer. As a result, the customer was unfairly disadvantaged from purchasing goods and services in line with the equality law.

If the baker clearly felt strongly enough that they decided to stand up for their views. IMO that does indeed call into question what they would have done in a slightly different circumstance. I'm totally open to the idea that the customer was a 'gay activist' and may have deliberately chosen to target this baker for malicious reasons. Not to mention that there are reasons why someone would reasonably refuse service to someone, if that person behaved abusively towards them (for example).

The issue for me is that the baker elavated what should have been a simple business transaction into taking a soapbox platform for their views with a view to disparaging what the customer believed in. That is wrong IMO.

The law in question is quite clear on this point:

Splitting hairs is a VJ speciality, but I don't think it's the same.

A muslim butcher simply doesn't include meat as part of their business and most people know that if you want bacon, pork or ham that if you go to a Kosher or Halal place to buy it you are going to be $hit out of luck.

IMO there's a big difference between running a business that clearly doesn't sell certain types of products and being expected to change your business to accomodate a customer's special request Vs. running a business that provides the same products to everyone and refusing to sell to them because you disagree with the customer's values.

Getting hung up on the analogy of cake is a mistake IMO - since if we were really making an appropriate comparison - it might be a Jewish baker refusing service to someone who wanted a cake that said 'Destroy Israel' on it. Then the issue would be that the business owner was dealing with bigoted views that are insulting to them (i.e. a reasonable justification for refusal of service), rather than gay marriage which isn't offensive to anyone (in and of itself).

I understand your points, but I think we're getting off the beaten path here. The bottom line is that these people were not refused service because they were gay. The bakery owner simply refused to perform a certain service that went against his religious beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I do think he has the right to make that decision.

[landr 126]

Looking into this a little more, gay marriage isn't legal in Northern Ireland. So, in order to avoid being labelled discriminatory, the baker would have been forced to provide goods that support an activity that is illegal in his and the complainant's part of the world. Nice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I understand your points, but I think we're getting off the beaten path here. The bottom line is that these people were not refused service because they were gay. The bakery owner simply refused to perform a certain service that went against his religious beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I do think he has the right to make that decision.

The problem there is that's a short step away from establishments putting signs outside that say who they will and won't serve.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The problem there is that's a short step away from establishments putting signs outside that say who they will and won't serve.

You're confusing who they will serve with what services they will perform.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But there's nothing about the act of baking and selling a cake that has anything to do with religious principles.

[Teddy B 17,252]

But there's nothing about the act of baking and selling a cake that has anything to do with religious principles.

In this case it wasn't the act of baking the cake that caused the problem, it was the message that customer wanted to put on top of the cake that is in question.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In this case it wasn't the act of baking the cake that caused the problem, it was the message that customer wanted to put on top of the cake that is in question.

Of course. If you want a cake with a message on it that endorses homosexuality - they won't serve you.