The Great Irish Bake Off

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]shers Bakery in Northern Ireland was found guilty this week of discrimination – the owners refused to make a cake that carried a pro-marriage equality slogan, citing their Christian religion and their inability to support a cause that they disagree with. The fact that they had already taken payment for the cake means that, legally, they had an obligation to bake what they agreed to bake, but this is just a choice morsel in the interesting questions this case throws up.

I fundamentally believe a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, but the law is a different matter. If we ignore exceptional circumstances the only real reasons for service to be refused are obvious ones, you sell products specially targeted for one audience for instance. The bakery was open and offering to make custom cakes, thus these rules wouldn’t really apply. Following this ruling, they have had to temporarily only sell birthday cakes to avoid similar customers (mostly trying to make a point) and to not fall foul of the law again. I disagree with the way this has been handled by these people – it stinks to me of kicking a beaten enemy when they’re down.

I fundamentally believe a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, but the law is a different matter.

It also forces attention to the line between politics and religion and the clash between the two, a clash that was already evident in the Republic of Ireland vote to legalize gay marriage which the Church opposed. The bakers claim not to be against homosexuality but were uncomfortable with actively contributing to a cause (the pursuit of marriage equality) that their faith was against. The government is trying to respond to this by introducing a conscience clause into equality law, enabling businesses to refuse to provide services that would clash with their religious views.

Discrimination is discrimination, but the adoption of a certain political stance is different; the law can act against instances of overt discrimination, but when politics comes into play the situation changes entirely. Say, for instance, if you refuse to make a cake supporting equal rights for foreign people living in the UK, if you dislike foreign people it is clearly racism but, if you refuse based on a political leaning it is a different story.

Another question that is very pertinent was raised by Ian Hislop on Have I Got News For You – the question of freedom of religion versus freedom of speech. If you went into a Muslim bakers and asked for a cake with a picture of the Prophet, would the bakers be obligated to make it for you?They would be open for business, and thus this ruling suggests they would be forced to do so, but it would be mad to expect them to do so.

If you went into a Muslim bakers and asked for a cake with a picture of the Prophet, would the bakers be obligated to make it for you?

The fact that the bakers had agreed, and then changed their minds was not a point in their favour. If they had refused before money changed hands I would back them completely. However, agreeing to provide a service and then choosing to back out is a fairly shameful action, at least to my mind.

However, there are deeper issues here. How far, for instance, can someone follow their beliefs before they are considered offensive, illegal or even incorrect? Should businesses be able to refuse to provide a service if they have opposition with the service they would provide? Does equality make some opinions more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell?
[divider]

Photo: Flickr/marymactavish