Christian Family face possible legal action

'Is it possible to be a printer of books one disapproves of and still retain one's religious beliefs?'

Well, of course it is. No one's suggesting that the bakers should renounce their beliefs in order to produce the cake in question, are they?

I can't get past the feeling that matters of religion or/and conscience shouldn't be legislated for.

I do agree with Jingls on this.

It's not a matter of religion or conscience that's being legislated for. It's a matter of unfair discrimination on the basis of someone else's sexual orientation. Someone else's sexual orientation does not one jot or iota of harm or damage to the baker's conscience or religious beliefs. All the law says is that he can't refuse his service or business to someone on certain bases, of which sexual orientation is one, race, colour of skin, other religion or lack of it being others.

I fully agree with freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, or lack of religion, but that freedom does not include imposing one's conscientious objections on people who are doing you and your conscience no harm and just want to buy something that you make.

The rules of the baker's conscience apply to him and only him. He should not apply them to his customers by showing his disapproval of what they believe in.

So why not take the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Islam and a lot of other faiths to court because they do not agree with same sex relationships and some will not perform marriage ceremonies in their establishments?

Too expensive? Too large? Let's have a go at the little guys.

The religions are being taken on. That's why there has been a change in the law so that same sex marriage is now legal in all of the UK except Northern Ireland, regardless of what any religion says. Anyone who thinks same sex marriage is wrong doesn't have to partake in it. It is not being imposed on anyone who doesn't choose it for themselves, but neither is it being denied to those who do choose it. Both viewpoints are catered for and neither imposes on the other.

bags it always seems to come down to this, an argument about imposing your beliefs on someone else. You can only impose your beliefs on someone else if you have power to impose sanctions or if you have authority. People of faith who are required to carry out tasks that conflict with their conscience aren't imposing anything on anyone. People who demand legal sanctions against them are. 'He shouldn't show his disapproval of what they believe in?' How is that imposing his beliefs?

Unless you think we shouldn't be able to express heretical views?

His behaviour is saying that he thinks he's allowed to discriminate against gay customers in his job as a baker. The law says he's not allowed to so that. If he offers a baking service to the community he has to obey the democratically agreed community rules.

I do see the conscience difficulty but he is not breaking his belief code by printing something he disapprove of for a cake. He is saying that he's allowed to treat people differently according to his beliefs. The law says he isn't allowed to do that if he offers a service like cake making. If he can't bring himself to treat everyone the same he shouldn't have public shops.

Having a heretical view and expressing a heretical view in words, spoken or written (all of which I fully support) is not the same as changing your behaviour towards people who have a different view from yours. That is the discriminatory bit, the change of behaviour.

If it comes to heresy, which is the heretical view in this story? And who is denouncing whom (or what) as heretical? Only the baker has denied someone something that they had a right to expect, namely the provision of cake to the customer's specifications. The baker presumably did not set up in business as a baker of cakes only for people whose views on life he approves of. Do we really think allowing that would be good for community harmony? The potential for chaos, of which Northern Ireland knwos too much already, is vast.

He didn't refuse the order because the customer was gay, he refused on the grounds that the cause it was representing (i.e. gay marriage, illegal at present in NI) was against his beliefs.

What I've said still applies. The cake wasn't about his beliefs; it was about other people's beliefs.

Plus illegal doesn't necessarily mean immoral, just as immoral doesn't necessarily mean illegal. Just bye the bye.

The slogan on the cake was in support of legislation, not an attack on gay people. It was a political statement. And I don't think expressing your opinion is discriminatory. Expressing your opinion abusively or offensively may well be regarded as discriminatory under equalities legislation. Taking action on the basis of your opinion may be discriminatory. They didn't refuse to make a cake. They refused to provide a political slogan with which they disagreed. The new heresies are failing to conform to liberal humanist attitudes.

So refusing to make the cake would have been taking action but refusing to decorate the cake as requested is not 'taking action'? I'm not sure I follow that.

The printing of the slogan would not have been endorsing the slogan. The baker was not asked to endorse a slogan or a political campaign. I think it's that that some people have difficulty with, including the bakery directors.

Perhaps it comes down to the need for human understanding and kindness. Can't the mayor say, "Ok then. That's your view and you are entitled to it. I'll go to Greggs" (or wherever).

That's what would happen if decent commonsense prevailed.

I haven't read you post, jings. I will in the morning. I wa going to bed and a thought crossed my mind which seemed pertinent to this thread.

That thing that keeps getting trotted out about respecting all beliefs? Where did that come in this bakery director's behaviour? Rhetorical question.

G'night all. Sleep tight.

Human understanding and kindness works both ways Jings.
The bakery people could have said 'we don't like gay marriage, but we understand that people of a different sexual orientation to ourselves are entitled to tolerance and the same civil rights as heterosexual people, and so we will bake the cake as requested.'
God help any homosexual person born into the baking family

Is failing to display religious posters showing disrespect for Christian beliefs? If I were politely to refuse to advertise a gay pride march would that be imposing my views on others? Or discrimination, in a legal sense?

Sorry, I should have said 'Good morning, jings, bags

Morning, lily, jings, jane, et al.

"Is failing to display religious posters showing disrespect for Christian beliefs? If I were politely to refuse to advertise a gay pride march would that be imposing my views on others? Or discrimination, in a legal sense?"

No, lily, that wouldn't be showing disrespect for Christian beliefs. However, it would be a strange thing to do if it was your job to display posters for all kinds of events.

I think tolerance of others life views, approaches to life, in the public sphere of his chosen daily work, is what the baker lacked. He was asked to do something he does for a living, to provide a cake. He doesn't have to agree with the purpose of the cake (cakes with purpose! oh boy!) to just supply a customer with the cake they want.
If he had simply been in the habit of making cakes for friends out of the kindness of his heart (so it wasn't his job) and a friend asked him to supply the same 'gay pride' cake, his saying no, he'd rather not, would have been fine.

Imagine a person employed to be hoist up on a swing thing to paste banners up on hoardings refusing to paste up a poster because he disagreed with whatever it was about. S/he'd be sacked.

What if it had been a shop assistant employed by the bakery directors who had refused to supply something that the bakery usually supplied to customers because s/he (the shop assistant) didn't agree with the writing on the cake? The bakery directors would be completely within their rights to sack that employee.

Because supplying decorated cakes is the job description. It doesn't matter who is ordering the cake or what the cake is for; it's business, and you're not allowed to discriminate against customers just because you don't agree with them.

I had various shop assistant jobs as a student. The rule always was that "the customer is right". You bend over backwards to keep them on side, i.e. supporting your business.

If you can't cope with that, don't set up business in public shops.

Public is the important word.

People providing a service voluntarily also come under the discrimination legislation. Should simply expressing disagreement with the views of others be subject to legislation? The sounds to me like suppression of free speech big time. This baker's job is to supply cakes, not make political statements. That's the point. I cannot think of any other way of expressing this. I'm getting bored with saying it over and over again. If I'm bored, heaven knows what other posters feel.

If this particular cake-ordering fiasco was a setup, then I think it was a mean thing to do. However, I also think the baker was a twit to jump straight into the trap screaming and yelling his moral outrage (so to speak).

"Currant buns in a baker's shop", as it were (you do all know the nursery song?) are not the place to argue about gay marriage.