which was exactly the case here. The cake in question was supporting gay marriage which is still illegal over there, so advocating a change in the law to make something legal, just as the example above is.

Whether it should be illegal is clearly a totally different debate - the fact is that it currently is

Its important, because it establishes that there were no such clear policies or statements in effect. It establishes, that the owner, who took payment for the order, clearly was only later troubled by the idea. Had a policy existed and been in place for the business, they would clearly have not taken such an order.

Its important because it shows discrimination, rather than refusal to accept business (You don't have to trade with people as a business).

Basically, its a silly case, in which some uptight homophobes tried to use religious expression as a defence for being homophobes, and lost, and its being re-structured as a 'Human Rights issue' in an area where human rights legislation is not applicable.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

IIRC the order was taken by a junior, not the owners, and they rejected it when they saw the message.

I doubt there was a policy in place, but if there was, it was probably a vague one along the lines of "distasteful or offensive messages" - of course, what that constitutes differs from person to person (hence the junior staff member not deeming it a dodgy order, but the owners overruling).

Unless you list the things you won't do, you're wide open in that case, and you can't list what you won't do because you'll never second guess all the crazies and people with warped senses of humour there may be. All you could do is say "we reserve the right to refuse orders" and, as you said earlier, because this happened some time later, it's quite right and proper that the client may have recourse through contract law to claim back any losses or inconvenience which may have been caused by having to get the cake made elsewhere, after thinking the order was done

That's a fairly hazy distinction in semantics, but I don't want to get caught up in it. The fact that the law does not allow you to marry over there, by this argument, makes the law itself at odds with this very same legislation, surely? Why are there not mass lawsuits against the government for discrimination?

I've just had a very quick look back at the original case, BTW, and it doesn't say who took the order, only that it was declined 48 hours later. I can't assert either way, but it also says they employ 80 people, so that may make it less likely that the order was taken by an owner (or not)

Why are gayers so f**king touchy about literally everything.

You like dick we get it. now shut up and if you don't want to be treated differently, come and join the rest of the down trowden and stop being so fcking precious about everything.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Gay cakes?
Fairy Cakes.
Hairy chocolate Donut cakes.
Poof pastries.
Iced Bums.
Choclolate fingers.
Brownie
Plum Cake
Bum Baba