You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

The Cake.

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
I am not sure which is more ridiculous. The fact that it has taken 4 years and many thousands of pounds in costs to get a case regarding a cake to be heard in the High Court, or that the decision made by the High Court has been defended all day on the telly by so many prominent people.

The case was about a cake that was ordered at a bakery in Northern Ireland. The bakery then decided they did not wish to bake the cake on religious grounds, and refunded the customer.

The reason for their refusal was that the required message iced on the cake was "support gay marriage".

If you run a business, do you have to support every sentiment shown by every customer?

If you bake a cake to your customers requirements, does it say anything about you?

If you just baked this cake, would it really say anything about your views on gay people, or gay marriage?

Is it really Christian to act in this way?

Do you refuse to bake a Liverpool cake if you are a Man U supporter?

The decision made by the High Court was ridiculous. The bakery owners son appeared on telly saying he was grateful to God, for the result. This in itself is a worry, to credit God with the decision, rather than the judges.

When you think about all the sh1t that is going on in the world, to spend 4 years and many thousands of pounds to get this case to court is just nonsense.

If there is any justice in the world, local people will boycott them, and the bakery will go bankrupt.
«1

Comments

  • Phantom66Phantom66 Member Posts: 5,542
    HAYSIE said:


    Do you refuse to bake a Liverpool cake if you are a Man U supporter?

    Probably. Or at least sabotage it.

    Reminded me of these






  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 171,221

    Where would Steve Aoki be without "cake me"?
  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,756
    I think this was the right decision, any business should maintain the right to refuse customers.

    If the judgement went the other way, it would set a dangerous precedent whereas a customers outladish slurs, and requests ( xxxx is a non.. on my cake please) may have to be followed for fear of reprisal.

    I can think of a few borderline racist and bigoted viewpoints which would have been difficult for the cake manufacturer to say no to had the judgement gone the other way.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    tomgoodun said:

    I think this was the right decision, any business should maintain the right to refuse customers.

    If the judgement went the other way, it would set a dangerous precedent whereas a customers outladish slurs, and requests ( xxxx is a non.. on my cake please) may have to be followed for fear of reprisal.

    I can think of a few borderline racist and bigoted viewpoints which would have been difficult for the cake manufacturer to say no to had the judgement gone the other way.

    I completely disagree.

    Protection under the law already exists against the more outlandish, racist, or abusive requests.

    The cake was baked elsewhere without a problem.

    Gay marriage is an issue in Northern Ireland, as it remains the only part of the UK where it is not yet legal. The cake was ordered for an event promoting gay marriage. The event was presumably attended by a majority of gay people.

    I would assume that you could, very easily, and legally, place an ad in the media, or on a billboard, just saying "support gay marriage"

    I would wholeheartedly agree that every business must have the right to refuse an unreasonable request from any potential customer.

    The key to this is the word unreasonable.

    I think that in this case those with views that should be questioned, were those of the bakery owners.

    If you would prefer to spend many hours over four years, in addition to spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, rather than put a message on a cake that you didn't agree with, you should be worried.
  • MattBatesMattBates Member Posts: 4,118
    HAYSIE said:

    tomgoodun said:

    I think this was the right decision, any business should maintain the right to refuse customers.

    If the judgement went the other way, it would set a dangerous precedent whereas a customers outladish slurs, and requests ( xxxx is a non.. on my cake please) may have to be followed for fear of reprisal.

    I can think of a few borderline racist and bigoted viewpoints which would have been difficult for the cake manufacturer to say no to had the judgement gone the other way.

    I completely disagree.

    Protection under the law already exists against the more outlandish, racist, or abusive requests.

    The cake was baked elsewhere without a problem.

    Gay marriage is an issue in Northern Ireland, as it remains the only part of the UK where it is not yet legal. The cake was ordered for an event promoting gay marriage. The event was presumably attended by a majority of gay people.

    I would assume that you could, very easily, and legally, place an ad in the media, or on a billboard, just saying "support gay marriage"

    I would wholeheartedly agree that every business must have the right to refuse an unreasonable request from any potential customer.

    The key to this is the word unreasonable.

    I think that in this case those with views that should be questioned, were those of the bakery owners.

    If you would prefer to spend many hours over four years, in addition to spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, rather than put a message on a cake that you didn't agree with, you should be worried.
    I am with Haysie on this one. I don't think that the request is unreasonable.
    Outlandish slurs shouldn't be allowed but I don't think supporting gay marriage fits that category.
  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,756
    The cake was baked elsewhere without a problem
    ^ This is the relevant bit alongside companies having the right to refuse.~ Choice...

    Being forced by law is the slippery slope, the cake manufacturer always maintained it was the message he disagreed with not the people who asked. He would gladly serve them in future.

    You mention the company spending thousands over years, what about the ones who asked for the cake? Couldn’t they just take their business elsewhere instead of dragging it through the courts?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    tomgoodun said:

    The cake was baked elsewhere without a problem
    ^ This is the relevant bit alongside companies having the right to refuse.~ Choice...

    Being forced by law is the slippery slope, the cake manufacturer always maintained it was the message he disagreed with not the people who asked. He would gladly serve them in future.

    You mention the company spending thousands over years, what about the ones who asked for the cake? Couldn’t they just take their business elsewhere instead of dragging it through the courts?

    They did, they got the cake elsewhere.
  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,756
    I agree with the fact that gay marriage in Northern Ireland needs looking at and bringing up to date, however if you have certain principles ( which aren’t against the law) You should be able to follow them.

    I admired your stance against what seemed an unjust ( to you) request to provide more details of your personal life Haysie, I think this is quite similar.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    My argument with Pokerstars was based on the fact that they were asking me to reproduce exactly the same documentation that I had already provided for them in a previous security check. I was merely arguing that if they weren't happy with the documentation why did they let me continue playing, and assuming they were happy, then what good would be accomplished by reproducing exactly the same documentation.

    I believe that in this case, the refusal of the bakery, apparently on religious grounds, was only an attempt to disguise their own bigotry.
    We don't have to go back very far in our history to the days when being gay was illegal, and bed and breakfasts used to readily display signs saying "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs".
    In reality what on earth does the refusal to bake a cake with "support gay marriage" on it actually accomplish.
    I think it was a spiteful act, by very small minded people.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,846
    i thought that this case was fascinating. It is not often that I want both sides to lose! I feel that this was a missed opportunity to plot a sensible way forward.

    The cake buyer was spoiling for a fight from day 1 (just out of curiosity, why are there never "straight" activists?) He ordered a cake deliberately from a shop that he knew had conservative religious views. They sold him one. He then said "you do know I'm gay, will you serve me?" or some such, and the shop said "of course". It was only after that that he ordered the "gay" message on the cake, which they refused and refunded his money.

    On the individual facts, I can see why the Supreme Court (sitting as a Northern Irish Court) would have found for the (Non-)Seller. However, this does set an unfortunate precedent for other, more deserving, cases. What if this had been the only cake shop for miles in a rural community, or the only one with the specific expertise for that particular cake.

    I would have liked to see a decision where it would be illegal to discriminate in this way UNLESS the seller could demonstrate that this item could be bought elsewhere at a broadly similar place/cost, and communicate that to the buyer. That would stop discrimination as well as people desperate to pick a fight

    PS-both sides were funded by extremely vested interests in this matter, so at least the taxpayer didn't have to pay the ridiculous costs in relation to this matter.

    PPS-I was involved in a somewhat similar case many years ago where a disabled man was suing for the cancellation of a hotel booking when my client discovered he was wheelchair-bound. I tried to explain to the other side that my Client had a good reason for the cancellation and offered to tell them what it was, offered alternative dates etc. They were having none of it. The reason for the cancellation?-my Client had a prior contract to have new ramps fitted for disabled access during his proposed stay...
  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,756
    Apologies- I thought Pokerstars asked you to provide more than what you already had.

    If someone doesn’t support gay marriage when they follow the bibles teachings, does that make them a bigot?
    There’s an awful lot around then.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    The Bible is a very flexible document to quote from.
    For example "Live and let Live"
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    Essexphil said:

    i thought that this case was fascinating. It is not often that I want both sides to lose! I feel that this was a missed opportunity to plot a sensible way forward.

    The cake buyer was spoiling for a fight from day 1 (just out of curiosity, why are there never "straight" activists?) He ordered a cake deliberately from a shop that he knew had conservative religious views. They sold him one. He then said "you do know I'm gay, will you serve me?" or some such, and the shop said "of course". It was only after that that he ordered the "gay" message on the cake, which they refused and refunded his money.

    On the individual facts, I can see why the Supreme Court (sitting as a Northern Irish Court) would have found for the (Non-)Seller. However, this does set an unfortunate precedent for other, more deserving, cases. What if this had been the only cake shop for miles in a rural community, or the only one with the specific expertise for that particular cake.

    I would have liked to see a decision where it would be illegal to discriminate in this way UNLESS the seller could demonstrate that this item could be bought elsewhere at a broadly similar place/cost, and communicate that to the buyer. That would stop discrimination as well as people desperate to pick a fight

    PS-both sides were funded by extremely vested interests in this matter, so at least the taxpayer didn't have to pay the ridiculous costs in relation to this matter.

    PPS-I was involved in a somewhat similar case many years ago where a disabled man was suing for the cancellation of a hotel booking when my client discovered he was wheelchair-bound. I tried to explain to the other side that my Client had a good reason for the cancellation and offered to tell them what it was, offered alternative dates etc. They were having none of it. The reason for the cancellation?-my Client had a prior contract to have new ramps fitted for disabled access during his proposed stay...

    A very balanced view.
    I cant for the life of me see what the refusal of a reasonable request accomplished.
    I wasn't enamoured by the smug grins displayed by the bakery owners during their press statement subsequent to the verdict.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    Essexphil said:

    i thought that this case was fascinating. It is not often that I want both sides to lose! I feel that this was a missed opportunity to plot a sensible way forward.

    The cake buyer was spoiling for a fight from day 1 (just out of curiosity, why are there never "straight" activists?) He ordered a cake deliberately from a shop that he knew had conservative religious views. They sold him one. He then said "you do know I'm gay, will you serve me?" or some such, and the shop said "of course". It was only after that that he ordered the "gay" message on the cake, which they refused and refunded his money.

    On the individual facts, I can see why the Supreme Court (sitting as a Northern Irish Court) would have found for the (Non-)Seller. However, this does set an unfortunate precedent for other, more deserving, cases. What if this had been the only cake shop for miles in a rural community, or the only one with the specific expertise for that particular cake.

    I would have liked to see a decision where it would be illegal to discriminate in this way UNLESS the seller could demonstrate that this item could be bought elsewhere at a broadly similar place/cost, and communicate that to the buyer. That would stop discrimination as well as people desperate to pick a fight

    PS-both sides were funded by extremely vested interests in this matter, so at least the taxpayer didn't have to pay the ridiculous costs in relation to this matter.

    PPS-I was involved in a somewhat similar case many years ago where a disabled man was suing for the cancellation of a hotel booking when my client discovered he was wheelchair-bound. I tried to explain to the other side that my Client had a good reason for the cancellation and offered to tell them what it was, offered alternative dates etc. They were having none of it. The reason for the cancellation?-my Client had a prior contract to have new ramps fitted for disabled access during his proposed stay...


    Both sides were attempting to make a point.

    I could only support one side of the argument.

    I have no axe to grind, as I am not gay, and am already married.

    The planned message on the cake was "support gay marriage".
    As gay marriage is legal everywhere in the UK, and Ireland, except for Northern Ireland, this is a valid point.

    I am not sure that the bakery will admit to the point they were really trying to make.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    Essexphil said:

    i thought that this case was fascinating. It is not often that I want both sides to lose! I feel that this was a missed opportunity to plot a sensible way forward.

    The cake buyer was spoiling for a fight from day 1 (just out of curiosity, why are there never "straight" activists?) He ordered a cake deliberately from a shop that he knew had conservative religious views. They sold him one. He then said "you do know I'm gay, will you serve me?" or some such, and the shop said "of course". It was only after that that he ordered the "gay" message on the cake, which they refused and refunded his money.

    On the individual facts, I can see why the Supreme Court (sitting as a Northern Irish Court) would have found for the (Non-)Seller. However, this does set an unfortunate precedent for other, more deserving, cases. What if this had been the only cake shop for miles in a rural community, or the only one with the specific expertise for that particular cake.

    I would have liked to see a decision where it would be illegal to discriminate in this way UNLESS the seller could demonstrate that this item could be bought elsewhere at a broadly similar place/cost, and communicate that to the buyer. That would stop discrimination as well as people desperate to pick a fight

    PS-both sides were funded by extremely vested interests in this matter, so at least the taxpayer didn't have to pay the ridiculous costs in relation to this matter.

    PPS-I was involved in a somewhat similar case many years ago where a disabled man was suing for the cancellation of a hotel booking when my client discovered he was wheelchair-bound. I tried to explain to the other side that my Client had a good reason for the cancellation and offered to tell them what it was, offered alternative dates etc. They were having none of it. The reason for the cancellation?-my Client had a prior contract to have new ramps fitted for disabled access during his proposed stay...

    Do you think the verdict would have been different, or whether it would have got to court in the first place, if gay marriage was currently legal in Northern Ireland.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    PS-both sides were funded by extremely vested interests in this matter, so at least the taxpayer didn't have to pay the ridiculous costs in relation to this matter.


    The taxpayer paid for one side.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoHl5JRjpX4

  • goldongoldon Member Posts: 9,158
    Should you (not) wish to serve or bake a cake for someone, for whatever reason, you give them the " Go Away " price. simple.! Worse they can say is " You're Having a Laugh"
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    goldon said:

    Should you (not) wish to serve or bake a cake for someone, for whatever reason, you give them the " Go Away " price. simple.! Worse they can say is " You're Having a Laugh"

    The High Court would clearly benefit from such a profound viewpoint, you should apply.
  • goldongoldon Member Posts: 9,158

    The High Court would clearly benefit from such a profound viewpoint, you should apply.

    If "The Price is Right"

    Trouble is they're Judgemental ....... you & me would fit in well, given their "Idiotic" verdict's, but.......... most of the time you can be bit hazy.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,467
    goldon said:


    The High Court would clearly benefit from such a profound viewpoint, you should apply.

    If "The Price is Right"

    Trouble is they're Judgemental ....... you & me would fit in well, given their "Idiotic" verdict's, but.......... most of the time you can be bit hazy.


    Don't try standup.
Sign In or Register to comment.