Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

I came across this article just now and was wondering what people thought of it?

I'd imagine most Brits will be aware of this story, but I'm not sure how far outside the UK and Ireland (if at all) its spread so I'll provide some background:

A homosexual man named Gareth Lee went into his local, family-run bakery (that he has used many time in the past) and asked them to ice a cake for him. The message he wanted them to put on the cake was 'Support Gay Marriage'. The McArthur family, who own the bakery, said that they could not ice that message on the cake as it went against their 'religious beliefs' as Christians. Mr Lee took them to court.

Mr Lee argued that this was homosexual discrimination (in the UK and Ireland it is illegal for a store to refuse a customer based upon their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation etc) and that the McArthurs refusal of his request was therefore illegal.

The McArthurs said that they were not discriminating against Mr Lee's sexuality as they had served him many times in the past and insisted that they would continue to serve him in the future. What they took issue with was the message, which they argued was a political message that they did not agree with and by icing it on the cake, their bakery would effectively be endorsing that message. They argued that to force someone to write a politic message that they did not agree with was undemocratic.

Mr Lee won the case. And the following appeal.

The result has caused a bit of an uproar in certain parts of the UK and Ireland as its set a legal precedence. An example of this effect would be, were it in the USA, that a Democrat would be legally forced to write a message saying 'Vote Trump' and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts? Is it a great victory in the fight against homophobia or is it just a great victory for SJW that has resulted in an undemocratic and unjust precedent?

Honestly, I think it's a dick move to refuse to ice a cake for someone because you don't agree with the message, but I don't think it's illegal. It's just stupid.

There were actually a bunch of stories like this in the US but mostly based around catering gay weddings.

The business owners had every right to refuse and should not have lost that case.

Lets ask ourselffes the hypothetical questions what would have been our opininon if the political message was not to our liking like for instance " Kill all the Whales" or even "Legalise Maryhuana" would the uproar be the same then? I mean off course as a Dutchie the gay marriage is no issue here , but asking a bakery to engage in YOUR political message is , i therefore oppose the judges ruling , because free trade also means that a trader can choose not to get involved in a political debate he is neither part of or even can have a backlash on his tradings , or he can percieve it as such.

The judges ruling has set the door open for people to demand that traders engage or at least are cooperative in spreading a message that they cannot or will not stand behind , i would bake the cake and have in little print that is was not the opinion of the baker

MartaLina wrote: i would bake the cake and have in little print that is was not the opinion of the baker

haha!! :laugh: That would be an awesome cake

I have heard this story, or at least similar stories - and for the most part, they all strike me as being an absolute crock of shite.


My feelings are similar to Marta's here.


It may be "illegal for a store to refuse a customer based upon their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation etc"

but (as far as I know in my country) all business have the right to refuse service on the basis that they don't want to

So, whilst it may be discrimatory to say "I won't bake a cake because you're gay" there is no issue to say "I won't bake a cake, because it's tuesday and I don't like the current phase of the moon"

The business owner is not a public servant. It's their bakery, and within the limitations of what a bakery does, they have every right to do as they feel.

If they don't want to bake cakes that have a certain message on them, then they are just costing themselves a few cake sales, and if Gareth Lee wants to give them a bad review on his favourite Bakery-Rating App, then by all means, that's his right as well.

It is not however a human rights issue, or a matter for the courts.

Honestly, I'm with the bakery on this. What really sold it for me was that they didn't care that he was gay and would continue to serve him they just didn't want that message on one of their cakes. It is within the rights of every business owner to decide how their brand is presented.

I think that how they want it presented is wrong and I hope that they change their mind or lose business, but it is their right to refuse service. If they had been asked to put an ISIS sympathetic message or a Swastika on the cake no one would have batted an eye at their refusal. No one would have even heard about it (except maybe the local authorities).

you cant force people to say things that they dont want to say or that they think they shouldnt say

issue X is never more important than the right to use our voices or not use them as we think appropriate

you can assume whatever youd like about the shop owners, but if the shop owners were gay and the customer came in asking them to write "Help Us Support the Religious Rights Bill" then youd see another dimension to the case

if it werent for the right to use our voices as we see fit then there would be no support for gay marriage anywhere because society would have considered the issue already closed, and you would be legally obligated to say you agree

but we do have the right to speak our best understanding of the truth, honestly, and people who support gay marriage or any other issue are able to gain traction because of that right

in order to promote an issue, this rulling undermines peoples right to promote (or choose not to promote ) issues as they see fit, which zis a way more fundamental and important cause than any particular issue

People do not have the right to not be offended. Writing "Support gay marriage" does not imply that you yourself support gay marriage.

I support the judge's ruling. I'm against eating meat, but when I worked at Subway I still served people meat. Can I get a conscience clause saying I can refuse to serve meat to customers? If serving meat is such a problem, why would I put myself in a position where I had to serve meat? If there was something about my job which I couldn't stand, I should learn to tolerate it or find a different job.

"I find it morally unconscionable to provide services to homosexuals, because they are sinners filled with the evil spirit of the devil" - said the taxi driver to Mrs and Mrs Parks.

In situations where there are tiny minorities there might be great opposition to whatever they want to have on their cakes. Now you might say that it's ok for people to refuse service if this goes against their personal views, after all I'm sure they can go somewhere else. But what if that somewhere else doesn't allow it? And another somewhere else doesn't allow it? All of a sudden these personal views might in principle not discriminate, but in practice result in a structural discrimination against the minority.

Akkarin wrote: I'm against eating meat, but when I worked at Subway I still served people meat. Can I get a conscience clause saying I can refuse to serve meat to customers? If serving meat is such a problem, why would I put myself in a position where I had to serve meat? If there was something about my job which I couldn't stand, I should learn to tolerate it or find a different job.

In your case that makes sense because you were an employee, but this case, if I understood the OP, was about the business owner's decision not to do it. If the owner said do it and the employee refused I'd be with you. The boss makes the rules, you don't like it then leave. The owner gets to decide how their store is represented.