Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US judge rules bakery owner acted illegally in refusing service to gay couple

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. BlokeToys 7 Dec 2013, 4:01pm

    It is NOT a First Amendment right to discriminate against others! Man, these right-wing fanatics really are the dumbest of the dumb.

    If his “religious beliefs” allowed him to discriminate against women, or black people, or Jews, or any other group of society, there would be no argument in court. This would have been a simple case without any justifiable defense.

    I wonder, would those defending this bigot still be so ridiculous in their statements if he had refused service to women, or black people, or Jews? I very much doubt it.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Dec 2013, 4:54pm

    Glad to see the U.S. courts following our example as in the case of the two nutters running the guesthouse in Cornwall. Businesses serving the public have to comply with the laws of the land. If they don’t, then shut down. Religion is a personal matter and as such should be kept within the confines of one’s home or place of worship not in the public domain and businesses are in the public domain, end of.

  3. Another ridiculous appeal against discrimination law funded by the misleadingly named Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly Alliance Defense Fund). ADF specialises in taking hopeless cases – and losing them. ADF has lost enough discrimination cases to know that in those US states which have anti-discrimination laws, there is no “God told me so” defence.

    The purpose of these cases is to generate maximum press coverage supporting their bogus “victim” narrative and to foment opposition to anti-discrimination laws.

    Bringing frivolous cases is perfectly legal, and I am content for the ADF to continue wasting its anti-gay donors’ money by attempting to defend the indefensible.

    But I object to their attempts to mislead the general public,by pretending that these cases have some legal merit. Indeed I almost pity – almost – their wrongheaded clients (though “patsies” might be a better term), since most seem to have been misled by their ADF counsel into believing that they might win.

  4. Absurd.

    The owner of the cake shop did NOT discriminate against the men BECAUSE they were homosexuals. He simply refused to DO something he was asked to do because he thought it immoral.

    Let’s say that the one of the men’s (heterosexual) parents went to the bakery and asked for a cake for their son’s gay wedding. The owner would again have refused. Would that be discrimination against the parents on the basis of their heterosexuality? It’s absurd.

    Yet again, the courts seem unable to separate the person from the BEHAVIOUR.

    1. bobbleobble 7 Dec 2013, 10:06pm

      You really do come out with a load of guff. He refused to make a cake for these guys because they are two men getting married. It’s irrelevant whether he thinks that is immoral or he was objecting to BEHAVIOUR, if you treat a gay couple worse than a straight one in a similar situation then you have discriminated on the basis of their sexuality. Capiche?

      And if the parent went to the shop and he refused on the grounds that it was two men then it would be discrimination against the couple even though they weren’t the customer. He would still be refusing because the cake is for a gay couple and therefore it would still be illegal. The sexuality of the parent is irrelevant.

    2. Midnighter 7 Dec 2013, 11:00pm

      Your first statement is simply false, since it contradicts both observable fact and legal opinion. Your second statement is incomplete and misleading.

      1) He has stated that he believes that homosexuality (and providing services to homosexuals) is immoral.
      2) He THEREFORE “simply refused to DO something”, namely provide a service that would benefit homosexuals.

      By making that refusal, he was directly discriminating on the basis of nothing other than their sexuality which was basis of the legal judgement in this case.

      In your example he would still be in the wrong if it was established that he was refusing service on the basis of sexuality It is the intent behind the refusal that is the key here, the actual sexuality of those he dealing with is as irrelevant as their shoe size, until he refuses service to people because they have small feet.

    3. Absurd is an inadequate word for your “argument”. You have tragically little concept of the basis behind providing a service.

    4. Absurd is trying to rationalize your own belief in discrimination! A belief is not a legal reason to discriminate!

    5. That There Other David 9 Dec 2013, 2:10pm

      What a truly bizarre thought process. In your example if the parent of a straight couple asked for a cake he or she would have received a cake. Therefore the bakery owner is still discriminating against gay couples, regardless of who is paying the actual bill on the day.

      Judges are not there to interpret the Bible, they are there to interpret the law of the territory they are appointed by. Religious belief will never, and should never, trump the law of the land. In that direction would lie misery for all, even the supposedly devout.

    6. Don Sylvia 9 Dec 2013, 11:19pm

      Wow, I’m absolutely confounded. I don’t know what religion this man is. I was raised Catholic (although no longer practicing), however, I have never heard of a Christian religion (or any for that matter) that pronounces the making of a cake as immoral. And, yes, if he refused to make the cake for the clients parents he would be equally guilty of a human rights infraction. Any business can refuse a customer but it is generally accepted that the reasons behind doing so are related to that person harming the business by their on-site behavior. If these two men were making out like lovers in his shop he would be within his rights to ask them to leave. Of course that would result in his not making their cake but for an acceptable reason.

  5. I’m glad he was found to be breaking the law, but I wouldn’t give this bakery a cent to bake my cake.

  6. make them pay the piper if they wanna discriminate…regardless of yer orientation…unless yer being an unruley customer…you CANNOT base yer refusal on service’n someone just cuz you wanna decipher the readings from yer GHOST book you worship…cuz if that was the case…you CANNOT ever get yer hair done…go to a gym…watch a movie…see a doctor…ect.(need i say more) the non heterosexual revolution has begun!
    then eventually they will know what it’s like to be put under a spotlight!…simple pimple!
    http://getoffmydress.blogspot.com/2013/12/textnsextnperplexnoh-my.html

  7. People can believe what the hell they like – however childish and irrational it may appear to the rest of society. But the moment someone says, “My belief trumps your human rights”, I want them sectioned. Religious belief is – and must never be – a license to discriminate. If we allow that, where would it end? “I’m not serving Jews because I believe they killed Jesus”? “I’m not serving black people because the bible condones slavery?” The first amendment protects someone’s right ‘TO BELIEVE’. It does not protect ‘belief’ so that it can be used to discriminate.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all