'Gay cake' appeal: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal
-
'Gay cake' appeal: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal
**The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have lost their appeal against a ruling that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs.Two years ago, the family-run firm refused to make a cake iced with the slogan: "Support Gay Marriage".
The order was placed at its Belfast shop by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.
The firm argued that the cake's message was against the bakers' religious views.Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".
"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.
"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."In court on Monday, three judges said it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message.
In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
The judges also said that Ashers would not have objected to a cake carrying the message: "Support Heterosexual Marriage" or indeed "Support Marriage".
"We accept that it was the use of the word 'gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled," they said.
"The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation.
"This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.
"Accordingly this was direct discrimination."The judges said that in the course of the hearing, concern was expressed about the role of the Equality Commission in the pursuit of the case.
They said that they had been assured that the commission was available to give advice and assistance to those such as the appellants "who may find themselves in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs".
"The only correspondence to the appellants that we have seen, however, did not include any offer of such assistance and may have created the impression that the commission was not interested in assisting the faith community where issues of this sort arose," they added.
The judges said it "should not have been beyond the capacity of the commission to provide or arrange for the provision of advice to the appellants at an earlier stage and we would hope that such a course would be followed if a situation such as this were to arise in future".Speaking publicly for the first time about the case, Mr Lee said he was both "relieved" and "grateful to the appeal court judges."
Michael Wardlow, from the Equality Commission, said the appeal court ruling against Ashers bakery was extremely significant and clarified the law.
"The judgement today was very clear. It said unequivocally, faith is important, but faith cannot set aside equality legislation that has been long fought," he said.The appeal court upheld the original court's decision that Ashers in County Antrim discriminated against Mr Lee.
At that time, the judge said she accepted that Ashers had "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.
The family's appeal was heard in May, but the judgement was reserved.** -
I'm glad for that verdict, otherwise, other so called bakers will use this as an excuse to refuse serving gay customer because it is against their religious beliefs
-
Shame about the cake, hehe.
The case went on for two years? Well, I hope the ruling makes it a basis for other cases of that sort. What's the legal term for that?
-
Its called a "precedent" , these idiots have made a statement saying they wish to further appeal to the supreme court (hopefully the supreme court will when getting the application state that the appeal has no basis and refuse to hear it). Such a waste of taxpayer money that someone has to be told multiple times they are in the wrong.
-
When I read 'Gay Cake'…I have to admit I thought of naked men or at least a phallus-shaped cake.
This is silly, I mean... it was just some icing! Besides, they could have asked the customer to don't tell he got the cake at their bakery.
farkme is right, such a waste of tax money...but I wonder, why didn't the customer go to another damn bakery?! Instead he made such a fuss...I'm all for marriage equality, but this is too exagerated.
(Great, now I want to bake a penis-shaped chocolate cake.... ¬¬' )
-
Sounds to me like the whole thing was a set up. They no doubt went to a known conservative's bakery and asked them to make a message they knew they'd disagree with and knew they could stir up a stink.
I stand more with the baker on this. Some gays are just out to make trouble, hoping to feel oppressed and cause drama. If they told me no, I'd take my money to someone who wanted it and move on with my life.
Gays in the Middle East are being tortured and killed and the media focuses on non-issues. PATHETIC. -
Sounds to me like the whole thing was a set up. They no doubt went to a known conservative's bakery and asked them to make a message they knew they'd disagree with and knew they could stir up a stink.
I stand more with the baker on this. Some gays are just out to make trouble, hoping to feel oppressed and cause drama. If they told me no, I'd take my money to someone who wanted it and move on with my life.
Gays in the Middle East are being tortured and killed and the media focuses on non-issues. PATHETIC.Both sides could be at fault.
That could have been a possible scenario of baiting a conservative owner of a bakery. And it's just a bakery. It's not like it provides life-saving services that you can say they should be liable if they turned down gay people.
if you see a baker refusing you, find another one. you can also tell other friends and they'll decide if they'll want to keep on going to that baker.
-
It's a two way street. Suppose I am a baker. A Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian preacher by the name of Pat Robertson walks into my place of business and orders up a sheet cake with the words "Gay Marriage is an Abomination!" What am I going to do? Well, I'll tell you. I'm going to tell the sanctimonius S.O.B. to act like a goose and get the flock out of my store. That cake is an insulting slap to my face! It is my right to defend my way of life without someone trying to insult me and cause me harm. So guess what? I get sued by the legal team of Regent University.
The Ashers also have a right not to have their moral convictions upended and shoved in their face. Justice is not served when they cannot defend themselves and the Appellates have told them just that. "Mr. and Mrs. Asher, you have no rights. You must make that cake no matter how personally offensive you find it to be. If you believe your going to hell by icing that pastry, tough noogies. Your feelings don't count!"
Come on people …fair is fair. -
Under federal law, most groups are protected from discrimination. HOWEVER, GLBTs are not protected. This means that regardless of your religious beliefs, you can only be bigots toward gays and be within the law.
Currently, only some states provide equal protection under state laws.
-
So many gay fascists in this world. It should be legal to turn away gays, blacks, Jews—anybody.
-
So many gay fascists in this world. It should be legal to turn away gays, blacks, Jews—anybody.
Except that, you can really only be a bigot to LGBTs in most of the US.
It's not "gay fascism" to want equality under the law.
-
Yes, of course that was most likely a "set-up". I don't think the gay-rights activist just wanted a cake, that he could have any other place.
I reminds me of some "kiss-ins" we had 25 years ago when a lesbian couple was kicked out of a bar. I guess it was well known that this bakery is a bit homophobic and religious lunatic and the guy decided to order some "gay cake".
It may seem ridiculous at times but without "gay activists" and stuff like that we all would still be in the closet. At least those of us who are out and not married with children and only "gay on the internet".
-
-
There is a very similar case to this in Oregon. In that case the Bakery eventually closed.
-
gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, does it? It's not like straight marriage would become illegal or something? Religious people can be so heartless sometimes…
-
gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, does it? It's not like straight marriage would become illegal or something? Religious people can be so heartless sometimes…
i wanted to say that but you said it first !
Agree 100% -
Guys, y'all realise this ruling means if you are a gay baker you will not allowed to not make a cake saying "homosexuality is a sin" if a customer asks for it?
-
Guys, y'all realise this ruling means if you are a gay baker you will not allowed to not make a cake saying "homosexuality is a sin" if a customer asks for it?
Seems they don't realize it yet.
As someone said already, law is a two-way street.
-
Guys, y'all realise this ruling means if you are a gay baker you will not allowed to not make a cake saying "homosexuality is a sin" if a customer asks for it?
What you are forgeting is that it would be illegal under federal law which protects believers (and several other groups), but not LGBTs. It would only not be illegal if the state also included LGBTs in anti-discrimination laws.
Most states do not include LGBTs in anti-discrimination laws. So in most of the US, gays are forced to pander to believers who can actively discriminate against them.
Anti-discrimination protections is an all or nothing type thing. There is no equality in a system that allows a group to be discriminated against, but not others.
-
iam so happy for that also
