Wedding cake for gay couple

Of course there is a biblical definition of marriage: it's between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman for that matter.

As Christians they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to promote something which goes against their beliefs. Good for them.

I guess if you are being discriminated against you may feel you need to fight your corner. And yes it may have been a test case to highlight discrimination

Leaving gay marriage to one side, how many people here would accept a commission from the EDL with a racist slogan? Or indeed more frivolously from a golf club with the slogan “Keep women out?”
It’s the principle of being able to decline a commission which I believe in.
Of course it should be done with civility and within the boundaries of the law - and these have now been established.

Perhaps because it would be illegal?

Perfectly legal nowadays to be gay, and ot choose a gay marriage.

So what about Hotels and B&Bs - should they be allowed to refuse gays?

MAW If it was a racist statement it would be illegal .

I understand some people cannot tolerate the concept of homosexual marriage. Nobody would force them to attend a wedding or to change their opinion. However, I still find the refusal to ice the phrase sad and wrong.

OK, for the purposes of argument
“Happy Birthday Dear Donald” with lots of nude blonde bimbos on the cake?
Please tell me I could (lie and )say “Sorry, up to my neck in work, can’t do it” without prosecution?

As I see it at least the legal guidelines should now be clearer which I would hope would actually reduce illegal discrimination.

Up to your neck in work is a valid excuse - and very different.

Now, for Hôtels and B&Bs? Yes or no?

Stick to the law.

Adding that if a person is not prepared to act within the law, they should not be in the business.

So what about Hotels and B&Bs - should they be allowed to refuse gays?
That is a different question altogether - and of course, in a country where homosexuality is not illegal, then no.
In a country where it is illegal then they would be entitled to do so.

There is a difference here - this was a slogan campaigning for gay marriage in a country where it is not yet legal. It was not discrimination against a person.

PECS we are not discussing whether or not this is sad or wrong - we are discussing whether or not the refusal to ice this cake was discrimination in the eyes of the law.

Eloethan As was said in an interview this evening, a baker decorating a cake with words does not necessarily mean that he/she endorses those words, any more than publishing a controversial book means that the publishers endorse the opinions within it
An interesting point. I agree that publishers may not necessarily endorse opinions which they publish, but I think if something is published which contravenes libel law or obscenity law or discrimination law, the publisher is in fact liable.
And in the case of newspapers, they may well alienate & lose readers if they publish too many articles reflecting extreme views. It must be a fine balance for editors in attracting controversial writers to sell their publications, while keeping their loyal readership.

One example given was if there was an Islamic printer, would he be expected to print the Bible?

I agree with JenniferE the complainant was referred to as a 'Gay Rights Activist' imo he went into the shop quite deliberately to get his desired result - attention for his cause. He knew the owner's principles and set out to upset them. I think he got what he deserved, there are better ways of highlighting his issue than this. It is one thing to be tolerant of other's views but quite another to be expected to endorse their message.

Can I just go back to the comments about marriage being biblical. Of course Christian marriage is based on a biblical ethos.

But marriage takes place in many cultures. Some marriages are based on religious beliefs and some have no religious associations but are nevertheless marriages. The legal binding of two people.

I am thinking of China say where marriage is a State ceremony and I think France, though somebody may put me right on that.

To talk about marriage as a Christian, biblical commitment is very misleading and , dare I say, a bit ignorant.

And surely if you are not a Christian what the Bible says about marriage is irrelevant anyway.

Indeed Eglantine- the Christian part is totally optional.
I mean, I have friends who are Muslims, Hindus, Sihks- even atheists or humanists, who are very legally... and happily married. Are you saying they should not be.

In Switzerland too- the ceremony is Civil (State) first- some people choose to follow with a ceremony of their choice, be it Christian of many denominations, or secular, or none.

A Church ceremony is NOT valid as a mariage in most countries, but just an 'add on' for those who wish.

So now you are censor Jalima? I did not realise.. today I have been told by Lemongrove that I should not have made a comment because s/he felt I was too political & now you object because I express my feelings. Pehaps the pair of you could devise some codes to be posted at the start of a thread so we can adhere to your posting constraints!

Don't mention platts, though- or you will be in real hot water ;)

Apparently it is not allowed to mention Brexit either, on a thread/post that clearly mentions Brexit in the OP - go figure.

So now you are censor Jalima?
Not at all PECS but you do keep picking me up on whatever I post
I thought we were discussing the judgement, but chat away about whatever you like, I don't mind at all.

there are better ways of highlighting his issue than this.

I agree Nonnie and it is unfortunate that this case has been through so many legal procedures and cost the taxpayer so much money.
I don't know how far they will get with their campaign with matters standing as they are at present in NI. Perhaps this should not have been an issue which was devolved.

Oh no jura I was commenting on some earlier posts that seemed to imply (to me anyway” that the concept of marriage was defined by what was in the Bible.

Whereas the concept marriage exists all over the world, in many forms and has done for ages in times and places where the Bible was unknown or of no relevance.

It was just that some posters seemed to think that the Biblical idea of marriage was the only one.

It was just that some posters seemed to think that the Biblical idea of marriage was the only one.
I think the point posters were making was that the couple who are the bakers would probably think that marriage is as defined in the Bible.
I don't think that posters themselves necessarily believe that, Eglantine

So would the bakers think that any kind of marriage that wasn’t biblical wasn’t really a marriage. That’s marriage is only marriage if it adheres to Biblical principles?

It’s kind of hijacking the concept of marriage for just one religion isn’t it?

Although I think the decision was right legally, I think the bakers are rather nasty people who contrary to Biblical teaching “think themselves better than others”.

janeainsworth You said "if something is published which contravenes libel law or obscenity law or discrimination law, the publisher is in fact liable.
And in the case of newspapers, they may well alienate & lose readers if they publish too many articles reflecting extreme views. It must be a fine balance for editors in attracting controversial writers to sell their publications, while keeping their loyal readership."

Your first example, i.e. illegality, does not apply. The words "Support Gay Marriage" are not illegal.

Your second example, relates to commercial issues rather than matters of principle.

The fact remains that baking and decorating cakes, publishing books, etc, etc., is generally a service provided in exchange for money. The opinions in the books/on the cake are the opinions of the person writing the book/ordering the cake and not necessarily of the business providing the service. The bakers' freedom of speech or ability to counter such a view is in no way threatened - they were quite at liberty to put a poster in their bakery window saying "Oppose Gay Marriage".

maddyone asks: religious rights trump civil rights?

No, but cakegate isn't really about gay rights, it's about freedom of conscience, being free to believe/think what you choose. As Rod Liddle says (paraphrased), one would not expect a gay baker to ice a cake with these words: "Sodomy is a mortal sin and those who commit it will burn forever in the cleansing fires of hell."

A gay baker would be within his rights, would he not, to refuse such a request because of his beliefs?

It was the right decision. They had served this person many times before. He was a regular customer. They did not refuse to serve him which would have been discrimination. They offered to make the cake and give him icing to put the message on himself.
What is the point of being a Christian or a member of any religion and not sticking to your beliefs, That would be hypocritical. I speak as a non Christian.
This case should never have gone to court. It wasted an awful lot of money and time.