Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Ann Widdecombe backs anti-gay marriage Belfast bakery

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Well then, Widders, you must also accept that gay business should also be allowed to discriminate against people like you. Fair enough?

    • lee

      so be so stupid you own a pie shop you are fatty widdy to come in – she be buying all the pies :)

    • doug

      I for one would certainly refuse to sell her an extra large carrot.

      • doug

        That goes for Keith O’Brien as well!

      • Joeoz

        “Extra large carrot…!”

        She’d need the whole crate…!

        • lord thorpe

          And the candle!

      • lord thorpe

        Bet she’d prefer a marrow.

    • trapezium

      That wouldn’t be equivalent to the case of the bakery, which is not discriminating against anybody. They’re simply refusing to support a political cause. Should they be forced to?

      • Robert W. Pierce

        It was the customer’s request to have whatever they wanted on the cake whether one agrees with it or not. It doesn’t affect the seller’s ability to comply. It’s a damned cake for heaven’s sake.

        As for my statement on Widders, her political views on same-sex marriage are fairly evident so a gay owned business should be allowed to discriminate against people like her if such views are known by the vendor. It IS relevant to this case.

      • Robert W. Pierce

        How do you know for sure they’re not discriminating? Have they said they would be willing to bake the cake without the political message? That needs to be clarified before we resort to saying it’s not about discrimination.

    • MenAreLikeWine

      What a completely idiotic thing to say.

      The business didn’t discriminate against anyone because of “who they are” – it simply rejected the message. If Ann had asked for the same cake to be made I am sure she would have been treated in exactly the same way.

      • lord thorpe

        Of course she would! Are you so stupid that you don’t realize that this is the law of the land in the U.K.? No point in you abusing people here, your issue is with the government of your country. Assuming you live in the U.K.

  • mattinlasvegas

    Is anyone still interested in what this heffer has to say?

    • lord thorpe

      NO!

  • lit per

    She must be put in jail or deported to Uganda!

  • Stephen

    That pig-ugly virgin’s opinion on marriage is utterly irrelevant.
    Sadly her extremist views are shared by a majority of Tories – Britain’s party of homophobic hatred where a majority of MPs view us as subhuman and undeserving of equal rights.

  • Daniel

    It’s rather sad that she feels she must spend her time denying people rights. Perhaps she ought to obey the bible she so often wafts around. I believe 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is most appropriate.

    For the uninitiated: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      Indeed! Widdecombe is such a biddy, such a nag, such a fishwife, a gorgon, a hag, a frump, a harridan, a virago, a shrew, and total damn birdbrain!

      • Joeoz

        So very eloquently put…!!!
        Poetry to gladden the ears and warm the heart!!!

      • Steven Gregory

        …harpie, Medusa, viper…

      • lord thorpe

        I think you need to get off the fence,on your opinion of Miss Widdecombe.

    • trapezium

      What about the rights of the baker to not promote something they don’t believe in?

      Do they count for less than the rights of Queerspace or the individuals who ordered the cake?

      If so, I don’t understand why. I detect a feeling that because the bakery is a business, customers are entitled to additional claims on it, above and beyond the claims they have on ordinary people. But to my mind this looks shakey – the bakery isn’t owned by the public or the customers, it’s a private enterprise owned by people.

      I sense a considerable injustice is being committed against people here.

      • Enom

        If the shop keeper wants to turn away business because they’re a bigot then at the end of the day its to the businesses detriment. To be honest, if I ran a shop and someone came in asking for a cake that said “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” I’d probably tell them where to get stuffed based on my beliefs (or I’d bake a cake of a big cock, either one).

        • Cal

          I see your point but these laws are there to protect minorities from discrimination. It’s the same as the ‘No Blacks, No Irish signs’.
          If I was asked to bake a ‘not Adam & Steve’ cake I would do it. But I might add a few ingredients not included in the recipe.

          • lord thorpe

            I was having a similar thought but I was thinking what I might forget, perhaps sugar? Or I was thinking I might accidentally mistake salt for sugar. It’s an easy mistake to make!

      • Robert W. Pierce

        If the baker were making and selling goods from the home, then it might be construed as a private enterprise. If its a place of business where the public can freely walk in, then no, subject to the equalities law which does NOT make provision for anyone to be exempt or above it. A bakery isn’t a place of worship or an religious edifice under the law. That applies to all businesses large or small.

      • Rumbelow

        The baker is being asked to bake and ice a cake with the customers message as decoration, he is not being asked to proclaim his own belief in the iced message or to sign a manifesto he doesn’t believe in, it’s just a decorated cake with someone else’s personalised message for Bess’s sake.

      • Daniel

        All persons, regardless of innate characteristic, should be treated equally before the law. The business isn’t being asked for “additional claims”; they are being asked to provide the service which they purport to be in business for. If they don’t wish to provide said service, then don’t go into business.

      • David H

        I’m not understanding this argument about the baker “promoting” something they don’t believe in. If they had their logo or some such emblazoned across the cake, there could (just about) be an argument that they could be incorrectly perceived as promoting something. But it would be terribly unprofessional of any baker to put their logo onto a cake – so that argument loses even the little potential credibility it had.

    • Rumbelow

      That scriptural verse doesn’t get her aroused at all so she just ignores it.

      • Daniel

        It’s always convenient that people such as Widdecombe will scream about religion and Christianity, and then choose to ignore passages of the mouldy little book. Either she accepts it all, or is (as proven) a hypocrite.

      • David H

        Like most bigots – they only acknowledge the bits they like. The rest of it is either out of date or doesn’t matter any more. Funny that ;-)

    • MenAreLikeWine

      It is rather sad that you think anyone is denying anyone their rights.

      • Daniel

        When someone attempts to deny a service because of their “disagreement” with an inherent characteristic of the recipient of the service; that is a denial of a right enshrined in law. Either offer the service to all, or don’t offer the service.

        • MenAreLikeWine

          The bakery in question denied to bake the cake in question – not to bake a cake for the customer in question. If Ann Widdicombe asked for the same cake I am sure she would have also been told no.
          Please don’t let reason get in the way of things.

          • Edd

            Yet time and again, those hanging on to outdated religious belief choose to throw reason out of the window completely and use at as basis to justify otherwise abhorrent (never mind discriminatory) behaviour. I question why a Catholic who follows some truly nasty homophobes on twitter feels the need to come and comment on a gay news media site, but it surely has nothing to do with reason.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            I think it is right to challenge the vile bigotry spouted on this hate filled website.

          • Edd

            Irony clearly escapes you.

          • Daniel

            Challenge vile bigotry by all means; but perhaps you might need to polish your compass.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            Ironic your comment comes on this site – a bastion of hatred and intolerance.

          • Edd

            The simple fact is like so many of your ilk you are completely left behind by a world where it is no longer the de facto position to hold religious belief, and interpretation of societal matters on a pedestal of unquestioning adherence. Like I say, irony completely escapes you, not least in the fact that your view is no longer the widely held view of society and increasingly not even of those of faith.

            You can continue to confuse the erosion of the undue privileged position religion has held for far too long, (and with repeated dire consequences for society beyond the intolerance of homosexuality), with persecution but put simply, it is not. Standing up to, and speaking out against outdated bigoted intolerance dressed up in religious freedom and belief, does not itself equate to intolerance and bigotry. You are free to continue to practice your chosen religion, and a bakery is free to bake cakes, but rightly so, society no longer sees it acceptable to do so in a way that discriminates against ANY minority.

          • Daniel

            Refusing to offer the service is still a denial of service. Again, either offer the service to all, or don’t offer the service.
            Please allow reason to get in the way of things.

          • Edd

            Arguably so. Many has the time been I’ve had to do something in my work I don’t like but you get on with it. If your beliefs are so outdated you can’t make a cake, maybe a career change is in order. Otherwise where does this stop.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            The bakery is in agreement with you. They have decided to not offer the service (baking that particular cake) to anyone.
            I am surprised at home many people are too obtuse to see this.

          • Daniel

            Once again… refusing to offer a service is still a denial of service. One cannot offer a service of making cakes and putting a chosen message on it, if then to decide that they don’t like the message being placed thereupon. It continues to be a denial of service. The answer is to stop making cakes if they don’t like the message being placed thereupon.
            I’m surprised at how many people are too obtuse to see this.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            Obtuse?
            What if someone requested a cake with a slogan that was offensive, maybe even illegal?
            If they had turned down someone who wanted a cake with “all homosexuals must die” on it would you object? What about something racist?
            If you really think that a service provider is unable to refuse any request made of them then you are on cloud cookoo land.
            If Pink News was asked to print an advert from the National Front would you be happy about it? Would you want them to be able to say “no, we won’t print that”

          • Daniel

            Curious in the change of direction of your argument.
            If the slogan was offensive, then it is irrelevant unless that slogan is against the law. If providing the product was illegal, then the baker is quite legally entitled to refuse to produce the product. Your two examples of slogans regard matters that the baker would be entitled to refuse as they are both covered by existing legislation. Your suggestion regarding a racist message is rather disingenuous, as you appear to be mistakenly unaware that racism (like prejudice against sexuality and gender) are both illegal under the very same legislation. I would recommend you peruse the Equality Act 2010 and associated literature to improve your understanding of the relevant statute in this matter.

            In the case highlighted by Widdecombe, the baker chose to refuse to produce a message on a cake. Whilst the message may have been (subjectively) offensive, it is not illegal. To refuse to produce the product or provide the service is illegal, particularly when using a subjective reasoning of “offence” or “not agreeing with it”.
            If Pink News were to print an advert from the National Front, it would wholly depend on the nature of the advert as to whether it should or should not be printed. If the advert contained no illegality, then there would be no issue with such production. Freedom of speech, thought and expression does not extend to only those persons/organisations that one might agree with. As previously stated; everyone should be equal before the law.
            The Baker is perfectly entitled to have the right of freedom to disagree with any messages requested to be placed upon the product. Once again, what the baker does not have the right to do is to discriminate against anyone for the provision of a legal service. In this case, the requested product was not illegal and therefore the bakers are subject to the penalties enshrined in law.
            The same arose from the Chymorvah case wherein it was determined that the Bulls were rightly entitled to hold subjective views against unmarried couples (and homosexuality), but they were not entitled to discriminate in the provision of a service.
            The moment that a person or organisation makes the choice to enter into business arrangements with another person or organisation, emotion and personal opinion ought not to enter into the equation; lest one falls foul of the law and ends up in the predicament of this case.
            Equality is a right. Bigotry is a choice.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the right to have someone exercise it for you.
            Do you moan about freedom of speech when moderators delete comments on here? Are you really too blinded by your own hatred that you can’t see the difference? Really??
            Let me spell this out very simply for those unable to grasp it.
            The baker refusing to make a cake with a particular message on it is not discriminating against anyone. It is only if the same service, that is producing the same cake, is provided to some people. As there are no claims that someone else has attempted to have the same cake produced there is no evidence to suggest discrimination.

          • Daniel

            Ah, so having not been able to respond to one argument, you try a different tack.
            Once again (as the previous three attempts to educate you appear to have passed you by); either you offer the service in its entirety to all persons regardless of innate characteristic, or you don’t offer the service at all.

            The baker refused to provide a requested product “based on the management’s opposition to gay rights”. This is failure to provide a service based on discrimination. You appear to be labouring under some misapprehension in this regard. Please allow me to assist you:

            s13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 reads “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

            For the purposes of this, protected characteristics are outlined in section 4 of the same act, and include sexual orientation.

            It would seem that the law is rather clear on the matter.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            I didn’t think anyone could be so blind to the facts.
            The service is being offered to every person on the same terms. All people can ask for a cake to be made as long as it isn’t a cake to which the owners object.
            The cake has no rights.
            What a complete load of bigoted morons you all are.

          • Daniel

            “All people can ask for a cake to be made as long as it isn’t a cake to which the owners object.”

            Sorry to break this to you (again), but emotion and personal opinion have no place in this case, nor the provision of services to the public. Your fallacious argument appears to support the notion that if the owner dislikes a message about people of a specific background (in this case; gay), they are permitted to decline the service. Perhaps you would also advocate the owner being permitted to refuse to produce a cake with the message “Support interracial marriage”, with a picture of a mixed-race couple. Of course, if the owners disagree, then this must be correct right? Can you not see how your argument is completely unfounded?

            “The service is being offered to every person on the same terms.”

            Actually you will find that the service is being denied on grounds “based on the management’s opposition to gay rights”. The owners have specifically outlined their reasons for denying the service. Please do take the time to re-read s13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 once again.

            Oh poppet, name calling is the last refuge of the out-argued.

          • MenAreLikeWine

            I am sorry, but discussing this point with you and others is pointless. You are divorced from reason and obsessed with your own hatred and bigotry.

          • Daniel

            Sorry to break this to you – but it would appear that you are unable to look at this objectively. It is interesting that you keep throwing the word bigotry about. Perhaps you would care to be reminded of the definition: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” It is also interesting that intolerance is the crucial element in this case; whereby the service provider has introduced intolerance into a service transaction.

            May I suggest that if you wish to enter into business arrangements with others, that you consider removing any subjective opinion or thought – you might find that it serves you better.
            I might also recommend that you read up on what equality really is, and what the appropriate legislation entails. I would hope that, despite yourself, you might gain a valuable education.

          • lord thorpe

            Hi Ms or Mr MenAreLikeWine,
            Sorry but I am a bit obtuse, but if someone requested a slogan that was illegal, wouldn’t that be illegal?
            I suspect Pink News would print an Ad for the National Front if it was legal. Why don’t you suggest it at the next meeting? I suspect they may possibly think that Pink News may not be a very cost effect effective medium to advertise in.
            Sorry to be so obtuse!

          • MenAreLikeWine

            Well I am sure they run an advert from the Paedophile Information Exchange – why don’t you ask at the next PiE meeting you attend?

          • lord thorpe

            Isn’t that illegal?

          • lord thorpe

            Dear Ms or Mr,
            I don’t think we have Paedophile Information Exchange in the country I live in. but I’m sure you would know much more than me about that sort of thing than I.
            Call me an obtuse old bastard if you like,—but you still have not answered my question. WOULDN’T AN ILLEGAL SLOGAN BE ILLEGAL?

          • Daniel

            The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was declared an illegal organisation by the Metropolitan Police Service Paedophile Unit in 2006, whereupon the remaining members of the insidious organisation were arrested and charged with offences under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.
            So in answer to your question, poppet, no, Pinknews will not be running an advert from an illegal organisation.

  • James Orpin

    Glad to hear about the foster carer. The foster carer won’t just be potentially dealing with the child’s sexuality but what if the prospective adopters are gay. Will she be equally accepting of them, I doubt it. The move from foster care to adoptive placement is very emotional and needs to be free of this kind of prejudice.

  • @Mike-uk2011

    Can’t say I’m surprised, really. The renowned bigot she is.

  • Halou

    At a time when the streets were violently divided between two groups, both claiming a religious right, protected by the law, to refuse the other in just about every aspect of life, Ann Widdecombe tells us we should welcome the return of such a divisive ideology.

    Northern Ireland has already endured the Troubles once, it does not need to do so again.

  • MarkB

    I wish this fugly, self-hating, repressed lesbian, has-been, would just shut up!

  • CHBrighton

    These people will keep on and on until they get what they want – which is that their religious beliefs should trump all other equalities. Widdicombe will, of course, defend all the advantages that the church of England has in our constitution even though they are anti-democratic; but she will defend them because they are religious. She’s a nasty piece of work.

  • John Worrow

    It’s time she came out of the closet

    • Truth

      Spot on! The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the closet case……

  • Benji

    She didn’t used to be so offensive before she got that revolting blond hair

    • https://www.facebook.com/monica.cassidy.3 monica

      No, you can’t polish a turd and if you roll it in glitter, it remains a turd.

      • doug

        I believe she dries, varnishes and mounts’ hers for friends.

    • Truth

      I beg to differ. She has always been a mixed bag.

  • john

    I wish peple like this would look up the facts first, didn’t someone post on PN yesterday that political opinions were also protected and just spouting off about a letter from some made up woman who claims she was rejected as a foster parent without going into the details or facts is just not on.

  • Noah Campbell

    she a complete Homophob! go and crawl under your stone again !!! this world is moving towards acceptance!!! here in northern ireland !! where definitely not going backwards

  • Katie

    I bet Doris Karloff would be pretty miffed if a bakery refused to produce Monster Munch, though…

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    My instinct is always to disagree with Ann Widdecombe, but when it comes to the cake I can’t. Equality laws are there to protect individuals from being unfairly denied goods, services, or employment. They are not there to compel people to provide a platform for political views they don’t share. Otherwise, the no platform policies that we all clamour for (gay cure adverts on TfL buses, the World Congress of Families hosting a media circus at the Law Society, etc) are just as invalid.

    • SFM

      And by your logic a local copy shop could refuse to reproduce flyers from political parties they do not support. A company that reproduces a sign, or even creates a sign for a customer does not endorse the customer’s message. According to your theory, a letter Muslim letter carrier could refuse to deliver a New Testament in the post.

      • lord thorpe

        Sorry but I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

  • Rehan

    nobody should be obliged by law to affirm that which he or she does not believe.”

    I’d be curious to know what Widdecombe would make of a cake shop that refused to bake a cake for Easter saying ‘Christ is Risen’ or something like that, on the basis that it refused to endorse a Christian message. I bet she’d be up in arms in a flash.

  • lee

    Very strange person a fag hag who is no friend of the LGBT community and yet has many gay friends – she just a little fat woman who no onew takes seriouslyt anyway

  • doug

    A fool remains a fool.

  • David Bishop

    I suppose the question that needs asking publicly is: Is it legal to refuse to make a cake for black people getting married and is it also legal to refuse a hotel room to black people?

    • Rehan

      I think the issue lies in the message of the cake (“support gay marriage”). Maybe an better analogy would be if a baker refused to produce cake saying ‘Support the EDL’?

    • Truth

      The question is: ‘should religious belief be a licence to discriminate?’ Clearly, the answer has to be ‘no’ for, if we allow it to be, anyone could discriminate against anyone on religious grounds – Jews against Muslims, Catholics against Protestants, Sikhs against Hindus. Where would it end? Belief, is a personal matter. I believe in Peter Pan. But I would no more expect that to permit me to pick and choose who I can and cannot discriminate against than if I believed in a two-thousand year old middle-eastern cult centred on talking snakes and people coming back from the dead. Let’s all just grow-up, shall we ….?

      • lord thorpe

        YES!

  • TampaZeke

    Well this is SHOCKING!

    Oh, no, wait a minute, it’s that other thing, COMPLETELY EXPECTED!

  • Stevie

    Old hessian knickers has woken up again has she, give her another schooner of bile and she’ll soon drop off again

  • https://www.facebook.com/monica.cassidy.3 monica

    Same old; same old. Another classic case. Indoctrinated. Abuse begets abuse. The abused becomes the abuser.

    Express is hateful rag + Widdy is hateful old bag = marriage made in their vision of heaven.

    Nuff said.

  • Cal

    Just when the bigot bakers thought things couldn’t get any worse, Widdecombe comes to their aid.
    Carry on defending the prejudice of Tradesmen and prospective foster carers. No one of and worth is listening.

  • John

    She’d back a donkey if she thought she would get in the limelight again

  • dave

    Just another opportunity for publicity, radio interviews, etc for this foul fiend. She should stick to roaming the moors after dark on Dartmoor were she comes from.

  • Truth

    … and presumably Jewish bakers should be able to refuse to serve Muslim customers … and white supremacists (using bible texts which justify slavery) should be able to refuse to serve black people? I can’t wait for all that to become law because it is my religious belief that outspoken spinsters should be forced to marry and then stay at home and cook for their husbands – as I think you’ll find, Anne, it ALSO stipulates in the bible, you confused old hypocrite.

  • Rumbelow

    Widdecombe being disingenuous as ever, the baker was not asked to affirm anything at all, he was asked simply to pipe his customers message onto a personalised cake which is what his business supposedly does most of the time.

  • ktah

    Opponents of gay marriage who argue that “marriage is between a man and a woman” and “you can’t redefine marriage” are themselves trying to redefine the reality of marriage for other people and thereby alienating a large amount of people in the process. They are alienating divorced people who remarry because then marriage is between a man and different women at different times in his life or marriage is between a woman and different men at different times in her life. They are alienating couples who either cannot have children or who choose not to have children because then marriage does not lead to procreation. They are also alienating cultures that allow polygabecause then marriage involves an individual having multiple spouses at the same time. Let us also not forget that marriage in bygone times used to be an incredibly mysoginistic and sexist bartering tool because then marriage involved fathers trading their daughters for livestock. So when Ann Widdecombe stauchly defends the concept of “traditional marriage” perhaps she should wonder how much livestock she might have been worth in a bygone era.

  • Avalon666

    How did she waddle out from under that bridge ?

  • Jock S.Trap

    I believe in treating people how you wish to be treated yourself.

    Thought the religious was supposed to be the same but they spend to much time denying others and hating others.

    Thankfully I am better than that…. better without religion.

  • Ra

    Westboro Widdecombe pops up again to spew her hate the gays.

  • Steven Gregory

    She looks like she “backs” EVERY BAKERY!

  • Brian Apple

    If this Irish bakery wishes to discriminate, it should lock its doors and get a doorman to select which people should be able to enter the store. It can’t have an open front door and then complain about who enters.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all