Christian Family face possible legal action

Of course Bert and Ernie are copyright characters and to use them for commercial purposes without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. You can bet that the permission would never have been given - so no case to answer.

river, I'm wondering, should the case come before a court, whether it would depend on how the bakery advertises its business. If they claim, say, to bake (including decorating) cakes for "any occasion", their defence could be tricky.

I think they should adopt "Queer Street". It's very good.

No, I got that wrong. The logo of campaign group is QueerSpace - don't know whether it was to be featured on the cake or not.

"Queer Street"!!!

Are you sure Ana?

Bags No.

(I don't know what I was on about meant! ) Just that no kids would be upset because they wouldn't see. Right?

This vexatious legal action, should it come to that, can only make a mockery of equality laws.

As I understand it, the bakery didn't refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding but refused to provide a cake with a slogan which they didn't agree with.

I'd be surprised if they were prosecuted.

I didn't know Bert and Ernie are/were Sesame St characters. I don't think kids would notice anyway. Would kids be invited to whatever event the cake was for?

Wasn't there something about the wording including 'QueerStreet', though?

I don't think the kids will notice (re Bert and Ernie)

Quoting Bags "I think most bought decorated cakes are revolting foodwise."

No!!! They are delicious!!!

Gay couples bring up children though, either by adoption or they are born by IVF, so what's wrong with using Bert and Ernie?
Unless Sesame Street had copyright.

I agree rubylady.

I'd have objected on the ground of putting Bert and Ernie on a supposedly gay cake. Since when do we use children's characters to promote any sexual orientation? Can we not leave children's characters to the innocence of children?

Or, at least, worth the money paid for them.

I think most bought decorated cakes are revolting foodwise.

I've just read this thread and I'm wondering the same thing, jane.

Is providing a decorated cake to a customer's requirements because you have set up in business as a baker of decorated cakes to customers' requirements "supporting" whatever the writing happens to say? I'd say no, it really isn't the baker's business what the icing says, only that the cake and its decoration are good quality.

Sunseeker As far as I know, it is not illegal to discriminate against the BNP
I didn't mean that a printer would be guilty of discrimination if they refused to print a leaflet for someone. I was hypothetically questioning whether, if they did print a leaflet for an extreme organisation, they would be considered to support that organisation.

janeainsworth I believe there have been printers who have refused orders from extreme political groups and that wasn't considered to be discrimination.

In the case of the B&B owners that was discrimination because the couple were refused a room because they were gay.

In the case of the baker, the refusal wasn't because the person who ordered the cake was gay, therefore it is not discrimination.

As I said before I have no problem with gay marriage (after all love is love and don't we need more of that in this world), but when a group pulls a stunt like this it does their cause no good at all.

It does seem like they were targetted for the response that was wanted - a way to get free publicity for the event?

I'm not religious and I'm not gay and have no strong feelings one way or the other about either group. I do think that Christians have a right to follow their beliefs though and shouldn't be forced to give them up in order to please another group of people. If they were the only cake maker within reasonable distance, I could understand it might be frustrating to be refused.

I thought we had a country of free speech, but it seems more and more than we are expected for conform/believe in things that are against our principles

I don't think there has been free speech for a long time - you are free to speak but only in a format that is approved of. In the main, that works quite well but there are occasions it does, in itself, become discriminatory.

Would a Kosher butcher be sued for not providing a pig for a hog roast?

Good point

If I worked in a Bakers and was asked to put on a cake 'Eat Halal Meat' I would refuse on the grounds of animal cruelty.

I thought we had a country of free speech, but it seems more and more than we are expected for conform/believe in things that are against our principles.

It's a sad old world.

Yes exactly MiceElf I question whether the baker can politely decline, in this case, to not make a cake with a slogan he clearly does not believe in. He is not banning anyone from his shop but expressing his opinion?

Carrying on his business

MiceElf Interesting isn't it.
I'm not sure that providing the cake means the baker is participating in the campaign.
Would a printer who did flyers for a BNP rally be judged to be participating in a campaign, or just carrying his business?
What about manufacturers of football strips? Do they necessarily support the teams they provide a service for?

It's an interesting point of law, isn't it? In the case of the B&B the two men were clearly discriminated against.

In this case, in a province where gay marriage is not possible, and where it was a particular transaction that was declined, it may be different.

Imagine a scenario where a baker was asked to include a slogan saying 'Lower the age of consent to 14'. That would be campaigning for a change in the law which many would disagree with. Should the baker be allowed to refuse to make this?

Or perhaps 'Abortion on demand up to 30 weeks'. Against the law as it stands but some would support this position.

The question is, which takes priority: freedom to compel a service provider to participate (however tangentially) in a campaign, or the freedom to refuse.

As I said above, it will have to be tested in the courts if it ever gets that far.