Whatever Happenned To The Right To Refuse Service?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29926372

[tamborine]

Next we will demand muslims cook pork & sikh temples serve beef curry.

[Baldric]

A Gay Activist wanting a Gay Cake,
Shouldn't be a problem, just go find a Gay Baker.
I think the word 'Activist' should give us clue,
then they try and tell us they don't want special treatment!

[ludwig]

It's ridiculous. Hopefully any court will see sense and tell them to *** off.

The key point is that the customer was not refused service because they were gay. They bakery simply declined to accept a particular commission. They would have declined the same commission from straight people as well.

You would hope that bakeries would also have the freedom to decline a commission for a cake with the slogan 'death to f4gs' on it too without fear of prosecution.

[anotheoldgit]

Apparently the cake was to feature Sesame Street's characters Bert and Ernie, surely the bakers could be facing infringement of copyright laws if they were to decorate the cake with these characters, apart from the fact that gay marriages are illegal in Northern Ireland?

Perhaps the Royal Mail should also be taken to court for refusing to carry Britain First election leaflet for the Rochester and Strood by-election?

[sp1814]

TTT

It still exists.

All service providers still enjoy the right to refuse service, but the Equalities Act provides that consumers cannot be refused service based on the following characteristics:

- Age
- Disability
- Gender reassignment
- Marriage and civil partnership
- Race
- Religion or belief
- Sex
- Sexual orientation

[ludwig]

Quite right sp, which is why in the B&B case, the owners were wrong to refuse a room to the gay couple.

This is different. Service wasn't refused at all let alone on any of those criteria.
The production of a specific cake design was declined.

[sp1814]

The key issue here is that these gay activists happened to unfortunately choose a Christian activist bakery who 'took a stand' based on their Christian beliefs.

Had I been the owner of the bakery, I would have simply stated, "The text on this cake is political, and we do not produce any partisan materials."

This is effectively what bouncers do when they want to keep certain groups out of bars.

If this had been a straight pressure group (say the Coalition for Marriage) who had similarly requested a cake that read 'Marriage = one man / one woman', they would have received service, therefore, the actions of the bakery can be seen as discriminatory.

Perhaps thats what needs to be done...a gay-freindly bakery should be chosen at random and asked to produce such a cake. If they refuse the commission then...

...actually, I don't know what that would prove.

[sp1814]

ludwig

I actually agree with you, in that this case is far more 'nuanced' than the case of the Christian B&B owners.

I've tried to see where discrimination comes into it, and I can just about work it out, but the fact is - the customer wasn't refused service. It was just the specifics of the request which were refused.

I don't think the claimants will win.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// The key issue here is that these gay activists happened to unfortunately choose a Christian activist bakery who 'took a stand' based on their Christian beliefs. ///

You really believe that do you? I think that this bakery was specially chosen, so as to make a specific point.

[Baldric]

//gay activists happened to unfortunately choose a Christian activist bakery//

You really think so?
My thoughts, for what they're worth, Long established Company with well known Christian views and a Gay Activist with a eye to gaining some more publicity for the cause.

[naomi24]

No one should be pressurised into providing a service they’re not happy to provide.

[ToraToraTora]

yes, sp, their mistake was to explain why, they should have just refused the order full stop.

[-Talbot-]

The key issue here is that these gay activists happened to unfortunately choose a Christian activist bakery who 'took a stand' based on their Christian beliefs.



unfortunately choose or target?

[tamborine]

They were lucky, as the cake cudda been over salted & that would be their Lot ;)

[Old_Geezer]

You will be aware of what happened when Christian landlords refused gay customers a room. One has no right to refuse service except in specific circumstances; justified by society not wishing to treat certain folk unfairly. I tend to sympathise with the bakery, it ought not have been difficult to find one that didn't care, and I suspect deliberately being awkward to go to one that might be expected to object on moral grounds, but that's the way things are going these days.

[ummmm]

Go to another bakery...simple.

[ummmm]

I don't agree with the bakery btw...

I just wouldn't make an issue of it.

[andy-hughes]

As I understand it, you can refuse service and are not obliged to give a reason.

This would have been the more sensible option for the business.

The 'activist' - and the soubriet hints at a more than averagely litigious nature - may well have known the real reason why his commission was refused, but knowing something and being able to bring a discrimintation case to court are two different things.

[sp1814]

AOG et al

There is nothing in the story to indicate the bakery was targeted.

I don't support the, "Just go somewhere else" principle, because that opens up a pretty nasty set of end points.

Where do we stop?

Should Christian (or whatever religious fundamentalist) employers be allowed to sack people based on race, marital status etc (remember, the Equalites Act encompasses three previous anti-discrimination acts)?

Should this be limited to public sector companies?

Should religious fundamentlists working in the public sector be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs?

These might seem like extreme examples, but if discrimination laws are waived simply because someone says, "It's against my beliefs" then we must be prepared for some very uncomfortable situations.

The hardline Muslim fundamentalist train driver who refuses to leave the station because he notices some servicemen boarding the train.

Hands up who thinks these servicemen should wait for the next train?