Of Course it Was Discrimination

The gay cake controversy.

Of course they discriminated. What is appalling is that this ever ended up in a court or that there is law forcing someone to do business with people they would prefer not to. The freedom to discriminate is a basic one, it is the right of association. I make decisions about whom I will do business with. Instead of persecuting these people, the cake buyers merely should have gone elsewhere and made it known to all and sundry why they were doing so.

This is a dreadful law and a sad day for liberty when a court decides that forcing  people to do business is a part of the state’s remit.


  1. And again it is an ‘activist’ who purposely causes the problem in order to create the court case, just as in the similar B&B prosecution. It seems courts don’t take issue with this and dismiss it as entrapment like they would with the police.

  2. I don’t agree it was discrimination (in the legal sense as opposed to the normal sense). They had no knowledge that the customer was gay, indeed had he been straight they would still have refused to bake the cake. How therefore can it be discrimination on the grounds of the customers sexuality?

    It was in fact discrimination on the grounds of the customers point of view, which is a completely different kettle of fish – are we now saying that a gay person’s views are completely out of bounds for anyone to disagree with? If a gay person comes in and asks for a cake promoting polygamy, or under age sex, can he or she now be refused?

    What is crucial is that ones political/moral views are not linked to ones sexuality – there are gay people who opposed gay marriage, and there are straight people who supported it. Thus to discriminate against people who are pro gay marriage is NOT the same as discriminating against gay people. The two things are not the same, and its very important that they should be seen to be legally separate, otherwise we are going to have a situation where we have a twin level legal system – some people will have more rights than others, based purely on their self professed sexuality.

    • Same sex marriage isn’t legal in Northern Ireland so what other ‘crimes’ must a baker be prepared to promote to avoid upsetting customers?

  3. Laws invented by Blair, enforced by judges appointed by Blair. What do you expect. All a good little earner for lawyers and scumbags.

  4. Why on earth didn’t they decline on the grounds that it was a political statement and they had a non-partisan political policy?

  5. You might think that it’s your flour, eggs, icing sugar etc, but that’s not the case. It belongs to the court. If you own something it’s yours to dispose of as you see fit, but since the court decided then the stuff isn’t yours.
    The court gave your stuff to someone you don’t like. As has been mentioned, these weren’t ethical gay people, but “oooh poor me I’m cakeless because I’m gay”, actually just troublemaking wooferoonies out to make a point. I don’t like them either. Why shouldn’t the court give your product to such imbeciles? It’s not yours. Furthermore your premises and means of production aren’t yours either, as you have to use them for whatever purpose the court deems necessary, ie making whatever anyone wants for whoever wants it.
    This isn’t about Christians or the right of homosexuals to be treated as other citizens. It’s about property, and proves that you and I don’t have any.

    • All valid points to which I shall add… slavery. When what you do with your labour can be determined by somebody else, that is called slavery: also abuse of the most fundamental property right, ownership of your own body.

  6. Precedent. That can be an ugly legal term if you’re on the wrong end of it.

    The good news is that ‘activists’ eventually get hoist by their own petard. The problem for the rest of us is the inordinately long time lag between activism and hoisting.

  7. So a judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan?.

    I put it to you all that if a gay owner of a bakery refuses to write a pro-Hetrosexual marriage slogan on a cake for a Christian customer, then that same Judge will rule (according to the law) that the gay baker discriminated against a Christian customer.

    A government ‘Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’ department is set up to ensure control of the people through laws that have been designed to divide and rule. It has nothing to with ‘equal rights’ for the people.

    Result of which a government is seen in the media as, for instance, ‘pro-gay’ or pro-Christian’ when rulings have been made in the courts.

    But really the government doesn’t give a shit either way – they are not pro-gay or pro-Christian at all. Only pro-control for their own agenda.

    And the court Judges are caught in the middle.

Comments are closed.