TL/DR A gay person commissioned a cake with a gay slogan from a Christian run bakery. The bakery refused to bake it. They could face a discrimination case.
I can't help thinking it would have been easier to go to a non-Christian baker.
To look at the other side of things, would a baker go to Hell for putting a gay slogan on a cake? Does God really care so much about it?
Nothing really screams "Christian" about their business statements. Not that it should matter.
Who we are
Ashers began with a vault of family recipes. For the past 20 years we’ve been refining and perfecting these recipes, to get them just the way you like them.
What we do
We love to travel and we pick up some great ideas along the way – from the traditional bakeries in the south of France to the cupcake shops in Vancouver. Then we bring our ideas back and mix them up in the bakery, so there’s always something new for you to try.
We make our breads, buns and cakes fresh every morning. Then we put them in our trusty fleet of vans and send them around the countryside to your local shops. So you can trust us when we say, they’re fresh.
Perhaps a Christian bakery can break a single loaf to feed thousands. It must help their operating costs.
I don't think anybody should be able to refuse business based on their religious beliefs. Beyond perhaps the use of ingredients. So if I went into a Religious caterer and tried to specifically order food made from ingredients that they wouldn't stock then I'd have no leg to stand on. I have a feeling that's already covered though.
TL/DR A gay person commissioned a cake with a gay slogan from a Christian run bakery. The bakery refused to bake it. They could face a discrimination case.
I can't help thinking it would have been easier to go to a non-Christian baker.
To look at the other side of things, would a baker go to Hell for putting a gay slogan on a cake? Does God really care so much about it?
Its an intentional attack, successfully done in the US. Welcome to the culture wars Great Britain and remember who started it.
If I had an issue, if it were me I'd bake the cake then give the money to a charity of my choice. If you're in business to make money, make money and let others deal with drama.
A Christian-run bakery that refused a customer's request to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage could face a discrimination case in court.
Ashers Baking Company declined an order from a gay rights activist, asking for cake featuring the Sesame Street puppets, Bert and Ernie.
The customer also wanted the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called "Queerspace".
The County Antrim firm could face legal action from the Equality Commission.
The watchdog confirmed it is assisting the customer whose order was refused and has written to the baking company on his behalf.
The cake was ordered for a civic event in Bangor Castle Town Hall, County Down, to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.
Christian beliefs
The bakery, which was founded in Newtownabbey in 1992, is run by the McArthur family.
The directors, who are Christians, operate six shops in Northern Ireland and employ 62 people.
The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".
The customer placed the order in Ashers' Belfast branch a number of weeks ago, and it was then passed to their head office.
In an online statement, Mr McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
'Discriminated'
Mr McArthur added that his firm offered the customer a full refund, which was collected shortly after the order was refused.
"We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
"It asked us to propose how we would recompense the customer for this discrimination. It also said it would pursue legal proceedings if we didn't respond within a seven-day time period," Mr McArthur said.
Legal assistance
The general manager said he was "very surprised" by the watchdog's letter and his firm asked the Christian Institute for advice on how to deal with the case.
The institute is supporting the bakery's stance and is now providing legal assistance.
Mr McArthur said: "I feel if we don't take a stand on this here case, then how can we stand up against it, further down the line?"
The general manager added that it was not the first time his company had refused customers' cake orders.
"In the past, we've declined several orders which have contained pornographic images and offensive, foul language."
Mr McArthur added: "I would like the outcome of this to be that, any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of their business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that."
'Unlawful discrimination'
However, Alliance councillor Andrew Muir - who hosted the civic event for which the cake was ordered - said he fully supported the action taken against the bakery.
"Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve," Mr Muir said.
"There would not be any debate if the cake had depicted an anti-racism or anti-ageism slogan, nor should it require intervention from the Equality Commission for this cake for Anti-Homophobia Day.
"It is ridiculous for this bakery to suggest that they would have to endorse the campaign."
The councillor, who hosted the event during his term as mayor of North Down, said another bakery in Bangor stepped in and accepted the cake order.
But Mr Muir added: "For Northern Ireland to prosper and overcome our divisions we need a new society where businesses are willing to cater for all, regardless of religious views, political opinion, disability, race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, gender and other backgrounds."
Gavin Boyd, a gay rights campaigner with the Rainbow Project in Northern Ireland, also supported the customer's discrimination complaint.
"It is because of sexual orientation that the company decided not to print this," Mr Boyd told BBC Radio Ulster.
"The law is really clear. You cannot pick and choose which sides of the law apply to you.
"If you are a company that is trading out there in the market place and someone comes to you, you can't pick and choose whether or not to fulfil that order based on their sexual orientation," Mr Boyd added.
'Respected'
But the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said the Equality Commission had overstepped the mark and the complaint highlighted the need for a "conscience clause" to protect Christians and others who have deeply held beliefs.
DUP MP Nigel Dodds said: "The case re-opens the debate about how exactly religious belief is respected within the United Kingdom and the need for someone's conscience to be protected whilst ensuring that discrimination does not occur."
In a statement, the watchdog said: "The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland provides advice and can provide assistance to people who complain to us that they have suffered unlawful discrimination.
"In this case the commission has granted assistance to the complainant, and has written to the company concerned on his behalf.
"The commission will consider any response before taking further action."
Northern Ireland is now the only part of the UK which has not passed a law to introduce same-sex marriage.
conker249 wrote: To me it seems the activist went there in particular to start trouble.
yup pretty much,
you dont walk into a gay cupcake place and ask for a "god hates gays" cake and expect to be able to force the baker to make it.
right to refuse service on any grounds, even stupid bigoted, outdated modes of thinking reasons count.
remember, its not freedom unless its freedom to do some things you might feel are personally distasteful.
gays may not like christians beliefs, and christians may not like gays' beliefs, neither group has to bow to the others beliefs, and neither has to make celebratory cakes of the others beleifs is they do not want to.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Are there any laws in the UK or Northern Ireland that prevent businesses from discriminating against customers for sexual orientation?
...
Yes.
There was a case involving a B&B that refused service to a gay couple on the basis of Christian belief. The proprietors lost.
conker249 wrote: To me it seems the activist went there in particular to start trouble.
It depends on how you define "trouble", I guess. I mean, would you argue these guys should have just gone to a different counter instead of "starting trouble"?
Frazzled wrote: If I had an issue, if it were me I'd bake the cake then give the money to a charity of my choice. If you're in business to make money, make money and let others deal with drama.
Yes, I agree. I think that obtaining a business license that allows you to run a public facing establishment means just that, you serve the public.
conker249 wrote: To me it seems the activist went there in particular to start trouble.
It depends on how you define "trouble", I guess. I mean, would you argue these guys should have just gone to a different counter instead of "starting trouble"?
Frazzled wrote: If I had an issue, if it were me I'd bake the cake then give the money to a charity of my choice. If you're in business to make money, make money and let others deal with drama.
Yes, I agree. I think that obtaining a business license that allows you to run a public facing establishment means just that, you serve the public.
But should someone be forced to create something at their work that goes against their personal beliefs? That to me is the issue. Are you suggesting that the same business be required to crank out KKK and Nazi cakes if someone came in requesting it?
It wasn't just a gay person ordering a cake. It was a person ordering a cake with an agenda message plastered all over it, and ANY business in the service industry should be allowed to decline business at their own discretion. Where do we draw the line with cakes? Are genitalia shaped cakes ok? What about cakes that depict some gory horror movie scene?
Why is a bakery not allowed to decline a job simply because they don't want to make that cake?
Next we'll see some hippies get ahold of the ACLU to sue businesses for requiring shoes and shirts.
And no, I'm not trying to compare the LGBT community to the KKK or Nazis or Hippies(God knows those three are in a league of their own).
It's a small business, not fricking Wal Mart. Buy your rainbow cake elsewhere.
The whole thing was set up intentionally by some asshat looking to start a fight, and that is why we should hate that person.
If you run a publicly accessible business then you should serve, within normal bounds, anyone.
This seems significant.
The customer placed the order in Ashers' Belfast branch a number of weeks ago, and it was then passed to their head office.
Do other orders have to go up the chain of command? At first glance it appears that staff are aware of their owners position and therefore that of the business.
Aerethan wrote: Why is a bakery not allowed to decline a job simply because they don't want to make that cake?.
Because the stated rationale for non-service was religious-based discrimination based on an involuntary characteristic of a class of people, which is not permitted under the Equality Act 2006, a law duly passed by Parliament, and thus, the majority will of the people?
Aerethan wrote: Are you suggesting that the same business be required to crank out KKK and Nazi cakes if someone came in requesting it?
I don't think hate groups have the same protections as a minority group with an established history of discrimination. Are you suggesting those groups are the same?
Aerethan wrote: Next we'll see some hippies get ahold of the ACLU to sue businesses for requiring shoes and shirts.
The "no shirt, no shoes" policies are for hygiene purposes and to protect businesses from customers injuring themselves while walking around barefooted, so not quite applicable here.
Aerethan wrote: And no, I'm not trying to compare the LGBT community to the KKK or Nazis or Hippies(God knows those three are in a league of their own).
Seems like you are doing just that, but I have to ask, please show on the doll where the mean hippy abused you, because you have referenced hippies twice in a discussion not involving hippies. Methinks you were wronged by a hippy and have an ax to grind.
Aerethan wrote: Are you suggesting that the same business be required to crank out KKK and Nazi cakes if someone came in requesting it?
I don't think hate groups have the same protections as a minority group with an established history of discrimination. Are you suggesting those groups are the same?
Come, now. He explicitly said he wasn't equivocating them; let's make good faith arguments here.
On an unrelated note, my mom was a hippie and enjoyed this shirt I got her a way back
Aerethan wrote: Are you suggesting that the same business be required to crank out KKK and Nazi cakes if someone came in requesting it?
I don't think hate groups have the same protections as a minority group with an established history of discrimination. Are you suggesting those groups are the same?
Come, now. He explicitly said he wasn't equivocating them; let's make good faith arguments here.
And then he did lumped them all together at the end of his post. Sorry, but the implication seemed clear. But, fair enough. I'll give Aerethan the benefit of the doubt.
Aerethan wrote: Why is a bakery not allowed to decline a job simply because they don't want to make that cake?.
Because the stated rationale for non-service was religious-based discrimination based on an involuntary characteristic of a class of people, which is not permitted under the Equality Act 2006, a law duly passed by Parliament, and thus, the majority will of the people?
So if they had said instead "sorry we don't serve dickheads" they'd be fine...
Frazzled wrote: So if they had said instead "sorry we don't serve dickheads" they'd be fine...
Legally, I think so, yes; until it happens often enough to members of a protected class and no one else to warrant a suit or a complaint to the human rights council or what have you.
Desubot wrote: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Does this have no meaning anymore?
Store policy doesn't trump protection under the law, and never did. I can't refuse service to every Filipino that came into my store and say "sorry, we reserve the right not to serve Filipinos".
Desubot wrote: "Wouldn't shops be discriminating against nudest for posting no shirts no shoes no service? (though funny enough i guess you can go in pants-less?)
1.) Nudists are not a protected class, whereas sexual orientation is under the Equality Act.
2.) Additionally, not all discrimination is unlawful. For example, if your religion requires a beard, and you're a firefighter, they may legally ask you to shave the beard because it interferes with a gas mask fitting, this is a legitimate and proper request. As DarkTraveller stated, the "no-shirt, no-shoes" policy serves a hygenic purpose, rather than arbitrary religious one.
Desubot wrote: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Does this have no meaning anymore?
Store policy doesn't trump protection under the law, and never did. I can't refuse service to every Filipino that came into my store and say "sorry, we reserve the right not to serve Filipinos".
So is there Rights just a policy then? (honest question)
Fair enough that I perhaps worded things in an inflammatory manner.
On the flip side, since it's rather obvious that this stunt was pulled intentionally to get some publicity or whatever, it just harms the community that it is supposedly fighting for, by making them out to be fight picking asshats.
And while I know that simply because one gay person is stupid that not all gay people are stupid, public perception tends to follow these minor incidents like it's going out of fashion.
Such attention grabs are no better than those who do it claiming some other "tag" that attaches them to some cause, be it religion, gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc.
Medium of Death wrote: Why are people projecting on to the victims that they did it purposefully to start a fight?
What are you basing it on?
Nothing.
Yeah, I'm not understanding where this sentiment is coming from. How are you supposed to infer that any given company could be Christian? Better yet, how are you to infer that that specific Christian company actively supports homophobic beliefs? There might be a few that will put up plaques with a bible quote or something similar, but by and large, it's not something to expect from any given company. After all, corporations are not people, no matter how much money you try to put behind that statement, and they don't hold religious beliefs on their own.
If this company were to hold beliefs that interracial marriage were wrong, and turned down a request for a cake that displayed an interracial couple, would that sit as well?
If they received a refund why didn't they just go to another baker? The flipside works here as well, if I'm me and they refused me service I'd give them the finger, talk about them on the intranetz and go somewhere else.
They were picking a fight (or as note smelling a paycheck).
Of course, there's more details in there but yeah, I think that's what it comes down to.
There is a difference between 'refusing to sell a cake to a gay person' and 'refusing to make a cake with subject matter you don't agree with'
Stores do this all the time... Walmart won't put 'eat a dick' on a cake, they won't draw a penis out of icing, they won't use copyrighted materials. I have tried all 3. But they will still sell me a cake without those things on them.
I don't see how you can force artists or craftsmen to make things which are potentially questionable content. If I wanted an ASS cake, and they refused because it was indecent, how am I being legitimately denied but someone else is being discriminated against?
Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
nkelsch wrote: Stores do this all the time... Walmart won't put 'eat a dick' on a cake, they won't draw a penis out of icing, they won't use copyrighted materials. I have tried all 3. But they will still sell me a cake without those things on them.
I don't see how you can force artists or craftsmen to make things which are potentially questionable content. If I wanted an ASS cake, and they refused because it was indecent, how am I being legitimately denied but someone else is being discriminated against?
Obscenity isn't protected. However, what was asked for was not obscene.
Iron_Captain wrote: Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
Iron_Captain wrote: Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!
Bugger off.
You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?
I'm trying to avoid doing the whole political opinion thing. But basically, it seems to me, if it doesn't fall under one of those 5 things (assuming I didn't miss an extra one), the business owner or store has every right to say, no, go away. I don't want your business here.
However, if it can be argued as one of those 5 things, then the aggrieved person has every legal right to go to the courts under the equality act. It would then be up to the courts to establish whether they do feel it does fall under one of those sections. Or, there was another reason. That's kinda why courts exist, really, to make decisions on stuff.
There's a certain context to the Equality Act and businesses in the 60's for Britain that you can have a look for to see why it's necessary. It's not exactly the same as the USA of the time. Similar, but with its own spin.
Iron_Captain wrote: Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!
Bugger off.
You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?
Actually... you may be.
No, I didn't read the article. I am lazy . No idea why I thought it was in the US. Maybe my Russian indoctrination automatically makes me assume all bad things happen in the US? I don't know. But being bigoted towards bigots just makes you a bigot yourself. I think we should tolerate all opinions, within limits of course. Inciting violence and hate speech and such should not be tolerated. Finding the middle way is always the best in my opinion.
Iron_Captain wrote: Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!
Bugger off.
You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?
Actually... you may be.
No, I didn't read the article. I am lazy But being bigoted towards bigots just makes you a bigot yourself. I think we should tolerate all opinions, within limits of course. Inciting violence and hate speech and such should not be tolerated.
Finding the middle way is always the best in my opinion.
H
We should tolerate all opinions and support homophobia? Are you even aware of what that implies?
Ouze wrote: Unfortunately, we can't fit Sebster's quote on a bingo square :(
Reminds me of the gay protestors. Hippies! (Funnily enough my friends are all gay and I have been called a hippie quite a few times. weirdly enough...)
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
Do we no longer have the rights to freedom of religion, religious conscience and expression? Free speech?
Homosexuals have the right to live their life as they see fit, to conduct relationships with whoever they like. They do not have the right for others to approve of and support their sexual orientation / lifestyle / whatever.
The appropriate course of action in this would have been to complain to your friends, write a negative review, write a letter of complaint to a local newspaper, or simply just take your money move on and patronise another bakery.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
Do we no longer have the rights to freedom of religion, religious conscience and expression? Free speech?
Homosexuals have the right to live their life as they see fit, to conduct relationships with whoever they like. They do not have the right for others to approve of and support their sexual orientation / lifestyle / whatever.
The appropriate course of action in this would have been to complain to your friends, write a negative review, write a letter of complaint to a local newspaper, or simply just take your money move on and patronise another bakery.
That is exactly my opinion as well, but than put forward more eloquently.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
"Your rights end where my feelings begin"
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
"Your rights end where my feelings begin"
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
"Your rights end where my feelings begin"
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...
I've never seen it used, it's just one of those funny extremist feminist kind of quotes
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?
"Your rights end where my feelings begin"
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...
I've never seen it used, it's just one of those funny extremist feminist kind of quotes
I think they're going with "I was discriminated against due to my sexual orientation, which is a protected attribute in the UK" instead.
And are Christians [and Muslims] not being discriminated against too?
"My religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not wish to condone it by putting a political slogan onto my product".
Or is a case of "Gay rights trump religious rights"?
I wonder what will happen if one day a gay business owner refuses service to a Muslim or Christian because he disapproves of their religious beliefs. Should be an interesting situation.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Are there any laws in the UK or Northern Ireland that prevent businesses from discriminating against customers for sexual orientation?
You can refuse to serve a customer for any reason.
GW staff regularly ban people, especially certain kids. Pubs also. Nobody has the right to say they are a special case and therefore you cant ban me.
I don't like this case not only as a lawsuit magnet of dubious, but it sets up minorities as privileged under law.
A publican or shopkeeper (for example) can ban anyone from his premises, if the shopkeeper is just a manager they can still ban but the banned person can appeal to the owner. These cake shop owners are in their rights to refuse service, that is normal.
However it is ominous that society is changing to a pattern where someone cannot be banned from a business if they have a minority card to play. " I can ban you from my shop, because its my shop but I cant ban him because he happens to be gay, even though it's my shop.
Oh, and INB4 someone calls me a homophobic Christian bigot, please note. I'm an atheist Libertarian who doesn't think the best way to protect one groups rights and freedoms is to strip way another groups rights and freedoms.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Are there any laws in the UK or Northern Ireland that prevent businesses from discriminating against customers for sexual orientation?
You can refuse to serve a customer for any reason.
GW staff regularly ban people, especially certain kids. Pubs also. Nobody has the right to say they are a special case and therefore you cant ban me.
I don't like this case not only as a lawsuit magnet of dubious, but it sets up minorities as privileged under law.
A publican or shopkeeper (for example) can ban anyone from his premises, if the shopkeeper is just a manager they can still ban but the banned person can appeal to the owner. These cake shop owners are in their rights to refuse service, that is normal.
However it is ominous that society is changing to a pattern where someone cannot be banned from a business if they have a minority card to play. " I can ban you from my shop, because its my shop but I cant ban him because he happens to be gay, even though it's my shop.
Indeed, its rather totalitarian. "Approve of my sexual orientation, or go to jail!".
We know they refused to make the cake because they are homophobic. Just because you're religion doesn't approve doesn't mean you get an instant cop out from the Law.
I wonder what will happen if one day a gay business owner refuses service to a Muslim or Christian because he disapproves of their religious beliefs. Should be an interesting situation.
I don't know how 'interesting' it would be. - It's the exact same situation, as 'Religion or Beliefs' is one of the items in the Equality Act (Also, I can't believe I forgot Gender, was the 6th thing - a major, major bad on my part!)
It still seems kind of simple to me.
If want to Run Business in UK.
-Then Agree to Equality Act AND all it entails.
Else Don't run Business in UK.
Indeed, its rather totalitarian. "Approve of my sexual orientation, or go to jail!".
I wonder if tolerance is reciprocated. What would happen if someone went to the Admiral Duncan pub in the heart of the gay area of Soho and started preaching the Gospel.
Its perfectly legal to have a conversation in a pub yes.
Frankly I suspect that not only would the preacher likely be chucked out in short order, but would likely face hostile police involvement. If you can be arrested for preaching outside a cathedral because it might offend local moslems, what will the Met do if a pub full of gays complain you are preaching in their pub?
In either case how would the public react if the preacher tried to sue the pub for discrimination.
Or is a case of "Gay rights trump religious rights"?
It's really not that complicated of an issue. It's always amazing how difficult it is for people to understand.
You cannot refuse service to a protected class.
Gays can't refuse to serve Christians, Christians can't reserve to serve gays.
I think it is slightly more complex than that, even though what you've said there isn't actually wrong.
It's more "Business A can not refuse to serve Group B that is listed under the Equality Act of The United Kingdom for the reasons of being Group B, which is listed under the Equality Act of The United Kingdom." However, if Group B does believe it is due to the reasons listed under The Equality Act of The United Kingdom, Group B can then choose to bring Business A to court, however, they must keep in mind Burden of Proof etc, as standard for a Legal case in the United Kingdom."
Medium of Death wrote: We know they refused to make the cake because they are homophobic. Just because you're religion doesn't approve doesn't mean you get an instant cop out from the Law.
No we don't. We know nothing of the sort. Did you even bother to read the article?
A Christian-run bakery that refused a customer's request to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage could face a discrimination case in court.
Ashers Baking Company declined an order from a gay rights activist, asking for cake featuring the Sesame Street puppets, Bert and Ernie.
The customer also wanted the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called Queerspace.
The bakery firm could face legal action from the Equality Commission.
From the article, my understanding is not that the Baker refused service because the customer was gay. He refused service because the customer wanted a product that carried a political message and the logo of a political campaign group for a political issue that he disagrees with on religious grounds. And the customer was a gay activist with an axe to grind, to boot.
Any religious person with a conservative outlook (of which there are MANY in say, Islam) would for obvious reasons not wish to condone, or be seen to condone something that contradicts his faith's teachings.
Just because you're religion doesn't approve doesn't mean you get an instant cop out from the Law.
But apparently if you're gay, that means you DO get an instant cop out from the Law and you don't have to tolerate other people's religious views and the fact that they don't like what you do.
If want to Run Business in UK.
-Then Agree to Equality Act AND all it entails.
Else Don't run Business in UK.
You are practicing equality is you reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone you choose from your shop regardless of who they are.
I'm not discriminating. I refuse the right to serve anyone I want to. How is it my fault that they are all gay and want gay cakes?
It's really similar in the US and our "fire anyone for any reason" laws. I can fire anyone I want for any reason I want, as long as it's not for a reason that is protected.
I can fire a black guy because he doesn't do a good job.
I can fire a black guy because his shoes are always dirty.
I can fire a black guy because that one song he is always humming just pisses me off.
I can fire a black guy because I was pissed off that morning and he was the first person that spoke to me that day.
But I cannot fire a black guy because he is black.
It's not rocket science. Your freedom to refuse service to anyone does not give you the freedom to discriminate against protected classes.
Indeed, its rather totalitarian. "Approve of my sexual orientation, or go to jail!".
I wonder if tolerance is reciprocated. What would happen if someone went to the Admiral Duncan pub in the heart of the gay area of Soho and started preaching the Gospel.
Its perfectly legal to have a conversation in a pub yes.
Frankly I suspect that not only would the preacher likely be chucked out in short order, but would likely face hostile police involvement. If you can be arrested for preaching outside a cathedral because it might offend local moslems, what will the Met do if a pub full of gays complain you are preaching in their pub?
In either case how would the public react if the preacher tried to sue the pub for discrimination.
But apparently if you're gay, that means you DO get an instant cop out from the Law and you don't have to tolerate other people's religious views and the fact that they don't like what you do.
A gay guy has to tolerate your religious views. A religious guy has to tolerate your gay views.
Both can say gak about the other and tell them that they think their views are wrong and that their lifestyles are wrong.
A gay guy cannot refuse service to a religious guy because he is religious. A religious guy cannot refuse service to a gay guy because he is gay.
Medium of Death wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae you seem to be projecting malice on to the person who just wanted a cake made by a bakery.
Are you feeling ok? Did a gay man once blow you a cheeky kiss from across the bar to offended your manly sensibilities?
Whos projecting now?
No male has ever made a pass at me. In fact, on the only occasion in my life that I can recall, it was quite the opposite.
I'm not arguing this from a "I dislike gays" viewpoint. I don't care about other people's sexual orientation. It doesn't affect me, I have no interest in how they live their life.
I'm arguing this on a libertarian principle - that gay people have the right to be gay, but religious people have the right to disapprove and express their disapproval, and not condone it.
Do I think you should have the right to refuse service because the customer is gay? NO.
Do I think you should have the right to refuse service because the customer wants a product that carries a politically charged slogan and logo? YES.
In this case, from the article posted by the OP I think its quite clearly the latter.
I wonder if some European Court of Human Rights that the UK falls under might have recently had some sort of ruling regarding being allowed not to follow laws because of your religion?
It's not rocket science. Your freedom to refuse service to anyone does not give you the freedom to discriminate against protected classes.
Refusing to make a cake based upon subject matter is not the same as refusing to do business with someone due to protected class. Subject matter is not a protected class, a person is. Who get's to legislate what is 'obscene'? Who determines which content counts as 'legitimately able to decline making' and what you can't refuse? Maybe a black person asks for a cake which says 'Happy Birthday N-word' and they refuse to make it. Are they discriminating against a protected class by refusing to make the cake for a black person or is it because they disagree with the content? What about if someone wants a cake for a cancer victim who just beat breastcancer and wants a breast cake to celebrate her double mastectomy? Is refusing to make that cake discriminating against women or is it content objection? When you make it so creative people have no right to deny jobs based upon questionable content, you destroy the system.
They will gladly sell them a cake, just not with a message which they deem questionable.
Medium of Death wrote: Why are people projecting on to the victims that they did it purposefully to start a fight?
What are you basing it on?
Nothing.
Mr McArthur added that his firm offered the customer a full refund, which was collected shortly after the order was refused.
"We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
"It asked us to propose how we would recompense the customer for this discrimination. It also said it would pursue legal proceedings if we didn't respond within a seven-day time period," Mr McArthur said.
Iron_Captain wrote: Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.
Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.
First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!
Bugger off.
You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?
Actually... you may be.
No, I didn't read the article. I am lazy . No idea why I thought it was in the US. Maybe my Russian indoctrination automatically makes me assume all bad things happen in the US? I don't know.
But being bigoted towards bigots just makes you a bigot yourself. I think we should tolerate all opinions, within limits of course. Inciting violence and hate speech and such should not be tolerated.
Finding the middle way is always the best in my opinion.
This is the kind of thinly veiled twoddle that bigots pedal out to defend bigoted opinions. It serves only to prevent progress towards an equal society.
From a legal point of view, the company has the right to refuse service, but not on grounds which discriminate against a protected minority group. The Bed and Breakfast incident sets a clear precedent.
From a moral point of view, the kind of wooly thinking that has us find a 'middle way' between the people and bigots leads our laws being middlingly bigoted.
In case this is not clear, here is a simple list of questions to check if your business is being a tool:
Do you want to refuse service?
If 'no', check if the product will promote discrimination against discriminated minorities (age, race, sex, gender, orientation) - If it will, you should refuse service.
If 'yes', check if the motivation for doing so is because the customer is of a discriminated minority (age, race, sex, gender, orientation), or because the product promotes equal treatment for such - If yes, then your business is being a tool and should stop.
Frazzled wrote: If they received a refund why didn't they just go to another baker? The flipside works here as well, if I'm me and they refused me service I'd give them the finger, talk about them on the intranetz and go somewhere else.
They were picking a fight (or as note smelling a paycheck).
Didn't it take weeks to sort out? That kind of delay could have left the couple screwed, in that they wouldn't have time to go somewhere else.
Frazzled wrote: If they received a refund why didn't they just go to another baker? The flipside works here as well, if I'm me and they refused me service I'd give them the finger, talk about them on the intranetz and go somewhere else.
They were picking a fight (or as note smelling a paycheck).
Didn't it take weeks to sort out? That kind of delay could have left the couple screwed, in that they wouldn't have time to go somewhere else.
From Orlanth's quote:
Mr McArthur added that his firm offered the customer a full refund, which was collected shortly after the order was refused.
Doesn't sound like it took weeks to sort out the refund.
The threat of legal action did however come weeks later. 6 weeks later to be precise.
Medium of Death wrote: Why are people projecting on to the victims that they did it purposefully to start a fight?
What are you basing it on?
Nothing.
Mr McArthur added that his firm offered the customer a full refund, which was collected shortly after the order was refused.
"We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
"It asked us to propose how we would recompense the customer for this discrimination. It also said it would pursue legal proceedings if we didn't respond within a seven-day time period," Mr McArthur said.
That is denying service based upon the customer, not at all the same as the issue here is with the content of the job. They were free to buy a cake without the content.
Except that would be covered under some other law I would imagine due to it's offensive nature.
Who legislates what content can be considered offensive or not? What if some content is not equally offensive to all? Who keeps the master list of what is offensive?
Except that would be covered under some other law I would imagine due to it's offensive nature.
Who legislates what content can be considered offensive or not? What if some content is not equally offensive to all? Who keeps the master list of what is offensive?
This is the kind of thinly veiled twoddle that bigots pedal out to defend bigoted opinions. It serves only to prevent progress towards an equal society.
From a legal point of view, the company has the right to refuse service, but not on grounds which discriminate against a protected minority group. The Bed and Breakfast incident sets a clear precedent.
From a moral point of view, the kind of wooly thinking that has us find a 'middle way' between the people and bigots leads our laws being middlingly bigoted.
In case this is not clear, here is a simple list of questions to check if your business is being a tool:
Do you want to refuse service?
If 'no', check if the product will promote discrimination against discriminated minorities (age, race, sex, gender, orientation) - If it will, you should refuse service.
If 'yes', check if the motivation for doing so is because the customer is of a discriminated minority (age, race, sex, gender, orientation), or because the product promotes equal treatment for such - If yes, then your business is being a tool and should stop.
Where to start with this.
1. If this was a bakery run by another protected minority, say Moslems, what would have happened.
2. Why should any minority have a protected status under law that gives them legal privilege not available to all. This is discrimination.
3. Why should we allow a society to label anyone that defends its right to practice its own lawful beliefs as bigots. It might be bogitted if the bakery somehow tried to stop the gays from being gay, however the bakers had every right to practice non-participation in the beliefs and values of differently aligned groups.
Our laws are 'middlingly bigoted' because politically correct legislation has criminalised non-participation in minority activities or beliefs, furthermore it unevenly enforces this. You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.
The bakery didnt even go as far as to refuse to bake cakes for gays, they refused to bake cakes with gay slogans, because they were being forced to proliferate messages they don't believe in. In any sane society a right of non-participation of an opposed viewpoint would be a reasonable point of right, until New Labour that would have been the position in the UK and minorities were not disadvantaged for it, they were just not unfairly advantaged.
Except that would be covered under some other law I would imagine due to it's offensive nature.
Who legislates what content can be considered offensive or not? What if some content is not equally offensive to all? Who keeps the master list of what is offensive?
Well in that particular case; Jesus, a religious figure, being sodomised by a Daemon would probably be seen as grossly offensive borderline, possibly seen as attempting to insight Religious Hatred. While Bert and Ernie holding hands above the words "Support Gay Marriage" would not be. I don't know what the laws are exactly but I'm sure you can kind of get the gist of what i'm trying to say.
I'm sure there will be somebody more eloquent than myself able to make this point.
Orlanth wrote: You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.
I don't see how you think it's possible to have a constructive discussion when you start off your argument with ridiculous assumptions like this and expect everyone to assume that your fantasy world is real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: The gay bakery owner phones the police, says he is offended and the Christian would likely face charges for incitement.
The rights only go one way.
Yeah, sure, just keep that whole martyrdom thing going. It almost makes me wish we still did that "throw Christians to the lions" thing just so that you'd understand what real persecution means.
Bullockist wrote: Orlanth just so you know, Christians are a minority.
Also I think the sodomy law has been repealed. What kind of lawful beliefs are you talking about?
Down with boggits!
Are you serious? Lots of things are seen as 'wrong' or 'immoral' by people in society and those actions are perfectly legal. It doesn't make their beliefs 'unlawful'.
Lots of people think drinking Alcohol is immoral... And it has nothing to do with religion, yet alcohol is legal. Are those people practicing 'unlawful beliefs' by not believing in drinking alcohol and choosing not to make products which promote drinking of alcohol?
This is scary thought police territory if people really think that they should be able to criminalize 'thought' that disagree with them personally.
Orlanth wrote: You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.
I don't see how you think it's possible when you start off your argument with ridiculous assumptions like this and expect everyone to assume that your fantasy world is real.
Ahh Peregrine, nice for you to turn up.
You don't have to believe in God to understand that in the UK at least there is very clear evidence that people who believe in Islam can get away with pursuing religious beliefs that people who beleive in Christianity would get stomped on for. An atheist could notice and comment on the difference, indeed some do.
Orlanth wrote: You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.
I don't see how you think it's possible when you start off your argument with ridiculous assumptions like this and expect everyone to assume that your fantasy world is real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: The gay bakery owner phones the police, says he is offended and the Christian would likely face charges for incitement.
The rights only go one way.
Yeah, sure, just keep that whole martyrdom thing going. It almost makes me wish we still did that "throw Christians to the lions" thing just so that you'd understand what real persecution means.
Riiiiiiiiight. And I suppose a Baker refusing to reproduce your political slogan on a cake is persecution?
Also, are you assuming that Orlanth is Christian? I'm atheist myself.
Again, jumping to a conclusion based on the assumption that Orlanth (and by extension myself) is a Christian complaining that his rights are being violated.
You don't have to be a Christian, Muslim etc yourself to stand up for freedom of religion.
I'm arguing this, not because of a religious belief that biases me against Homosexuality, but because of a Libertarian viewpoint that coercing someone with the threat of force (legal action) into explicitly condoning your political view is wrong and totalitarian.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well the Christian could choose not to be a Christian.
It is not a choice, they were born that way
The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.
People who have been here long enough already know Orlanth is Christian. Well, people who actually remember the contents of a thread for more than ten minutes anyway
Orlanth wrote: You don't have to believe in God to understand that in the UK at least there is very clear evidence that people who believe in Islam can get away with pursuing religious beliefs that people who beleive in Christianity would get stomped on for. An atheist could notice and comment on the difference, indeed some do.
So do you actually have any examples of this, or is it just more of your martyrdom?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.
Why should they have to? The bakery is breaking the law, why should the customer have the obligation to let them continue doing it and find another option? This is like arguing that segregation was ok, because black people could just go take their money elsewhere instead of trying to buy from whites-only businesses.
People who have been here long enough already know Orlanth is Christian. Well, people who actually remember the contents of a thread for more than ten minutes anyway
Oh, ok then. I guess I was projecting my atheism onto Orlanth.
Peregrine wrote: Why should they have to? The bakery is breaking the law, why should the customer have the obligation to let them continue doing it and find another option? This is like arguing that segregation was ok, because black people could just go take their money elsewhere instead of trying to buy from whites-only businesses.
Apples and Oranges, mate. How many times does it have to be stated before you get it through your skull?
The Baker did not refuse service because the customer was gay. (In which case your analogy would be direct and correct).
He refused service because he did not wish to reproduce on his product a political slogan that condones and indeed, promotes a practice that contradicts his religious views.
Being Black + refused service = discrimination
Being Gay + refused service = discrimination
Requesting a politicized product + refused service = the Baker exercising his right to freedom of religion and conscience i.e. not being forced to explicitly condone and share your political view.
This is a case of forcing your political views onto others who do not agree with them.
Why should they have to? The bakery is breaking the law, why should the customer have the obligation to let them continue doing it and find another option? This is like arguing that segregation was ok, because black people could just go take their money elsewhere instead of trying to buy from whites-only businesses.
There is a difference between refusing to serve a customer because of their protected class and refusing to make a product on-demand for a customer because that custom product may be offensive.
It is not at all the same as segregation... that is a totally false analogy. People of all sexual orientations are free to buy cakes from the bakery and are not being denied the ability to buy cakes... only to have them customized with content which may be objectionable. The question is where the law falls in the UK in refusing custom content or not. It is an uphill battle to prove discrimination on protected class since they were not denied business due to protected class.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well the Christian could choose not to be a Christian.
It is not a choice, they were born that way
The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.
I agree, It would have been easy to do so.
At least in the U.S. you have the right to refuse content for any reason. If a bakery is not writing Happy Birthday on their cakes ordered on the 10th of July no one gets to sue them for not making their Happy Birthday cake until the 11th. The same goes for a Keep it PG-13, please. A bakery does not have to make a cake with this message if they feel it is offensive to their sensibilities.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well the Christian could choose not to be a Christian.
It is not a choice, they were born that way
The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.
I agree, It would have been easy to do so.
At least in the U.S. you have the right to refuse content for any reason. If a bakery is not writing Happy Birthday on their cakes ordered on the 10th of July no one gets to sue them for not making their Happy Birthday cake until the 11th. The same goes for a gay couple wanting a cake that says Keep it PG-13, please. A bakery does not have to make a cake with this message if they feel it is offensive to their sensibilities.
Murica!
Edited by RiTides
This ain't Murica, buddy. In America, religious rights often trump other rights 'cos the Constitution and gak. In Britain, everything else trumps religious rights.
nkelsch wrote: There is a difference between refusing to serve a customer because of their protected class and refusing to make a product on-demand for a customer because that custom product may be offensive.
No, there really isn't in this case, because the entire reason the message is "offensive" is that it represents a protected class. It's like if a company refused to make a wedding cake that showed an interracial couple, because the owner believes that interracial marriage is offensive. The race of the customer would be directly relevant to the refusal of service.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Requesting a politicized product + refused service = the Baker exercising his right to freedom of religion and conscience i.e. not being forced to explicitly condone and share your political view.
Making a product is not the same thing as endorsing the message on that product.
People who have been here long enough already know Orlanth is Christian. Well, people who actually remember the contents of a thread for more than ten minutes anyway
Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.
Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well the Christian could choose not to be a Christian.
It is not a choice, they were born that way
The Gay activist could simply take their money to another Bakery that is willing to reproduce his political slogan on their products. But it appears that remarkably simple solution hasn't occurred to many people in this thread.
I agree, It would have been easy to do so.
At least in the U.S. you have the right to refuse content for any reason. If a bakery is not writing Happy Birthday on their cakes ordered on the 10th of July no one gets to sue them for not making their Happy Birthday cake until the 11th. The same goes for a gay couple wanting a cake that says Keep it PG-13, please. A bakery does not have to make a cake with this message if they feel it is offensive to their sensibilities.
Murica!
Edited by RiTides
This ain't Murica, buddy. In America, religious rights often trump other rights 'cos the Constitution and gak. In Britain, everything else trumps religious rights.
In the article linked by the OP the customers got a full refund and were able to get the cake they wanted from another bakery in good time. They were not deliberately inconvenienced for the sake of inconvenience. They received swift warning that the cake order would not be filled, a full refund was offered and collected with time to spare to locate an alternate venue to get their cake.
The bakery acted morally responsibly, they tried to minimise the burden refusal of service caused, a refusal of service which in most cases would be lawful as no retailer or shopkeeper has the legal obligation to trade with a customer, and no potential customer has the inherent right to demand service.
Orlanth wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.
Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.
The thing for me is that I just don't get worked up about this. In the end, if I can deny service for any reason other than some special class I can still deny service to that special class if I feel like it so long as I use some other excuse. It's okay for me to deny someone service because I think they're ugly or dressed like a poor person, but I can't deny them cause they're black or gay or whatever. Well sir its a good thing I said I was deny service because I think you're too tall for my establishment *but really I just don't like black people* wink wink.
That's a standard that just strikes me as laughable. Either we can deny someone service for flimsy reasons or we can't. This whole "you can deny service for a-z stupid reasons except for x and p, because those stupid reasons are specially stupid" makes my eyes roll.
44Ronin wrote: But in this case, attacking small business owners who just want to follow their beliefs and get on with their business is a complete gakker dick move.
Would you also defend a racist small business owner who just wants to follow their beliefs and get on with their whites-only business?
Orlanth wrote: Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements.
I guess you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the law in question protects Christians just as much as it protects gay people? And that a bakery refusing to make a cake with a Christian message would also be violating the law?
In the article linked by the OP the customers got a full refund and were able to get the cake they wanted from another bakery in good time. They were not deliberately inconvenienced for the sake of inconvenience. They received swift warning that the cake order would not be filled, a full refund was offered and collected with time to spare to locate an alternate venue to get their cake.
The bakery acted morally responsibly, they tried to minimise the burden refusal of service caused, a refusal of service which in most cases would be lawful as no retailer or shopkeeper has the legal obligation to trade with a customer, and no potential customer has the inherent right to demand service.
So it's ok to break the law as long as you do it with good customer service?
Orlanth wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae doesn't know me as well.
Nevertheless one need not be a Christian to understand that progressive legislation is leading to lob sided rights entitlements. Some of the most fervent activists at opposing progressive liberalism are atheists, and some have mixed feeling when they see progressivism target Christians, who are the main target for progressive dogma at the moment. Some would not feel particularly distressed if Christianity disappeared, just not this way.
The thing for me is that I just don't get worked up about this. In the end, if I can deny service for any reason other than some special class I can still deny service to that special class if I feel like it so long as I use some other excuse. It's okay for me to deny someone service because I think they're ugly or dressed like a poor person, but I can't deny them cause they're black or gay or whatever. Well sir its a good thing I said I was deny service because I think you're too tall for my establishment *but really I just don't like black people* wink wink.
That's a standard that just strikes me as laughable. Either we can deny someone service for flimsy reasons or we can't. This whole "you can deny service for a-z stupid reasons except for x and p, because those stupid reasons are specially stupid" makes my eyes roll.
You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
Denying service to someone who is attacking your beliefs and sense of religious identity...?
They might as well drop their pants and bend over...
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
Yes, we already do that - I don't know of any venues where stoning is considered an acceptable remedy for adultery, for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (first world venues)
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
Do you believe that it's ok for a racist to run a whites-only business? Or does this complaining about being forced to cede beliefs only apply to beliefs that you consider acceptable to hold?
Denying service to someone who is attacking your beliefs and sense of religious identity...?
I fail to see how there was any "attacking" involved. This wasn't a cake with a gay Jesus and "Christians suck" written on it, or even any reference at all to the business owner's beliefs.
Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse? If the answer is yes, then the cake store owner in this case should also have the right to refuse. For the record, I have nothing against gay people, have several gay friends, and I think that religiously bigoted people are pathetic and disgusting. But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views. I'm sure others will disagree, shrug, but my personal opinion is set. I actually side with the bigot here; not something I ever thought I'd do.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?
That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.
But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.
So you support the right to run a whites-only business?
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
Yes, we already do that - I don't know of any venues where stoning is considered an acceptable remedy for adultery, for example.
Where to start on this mess?
That's an example of an action, not an actual belief.
Forcing people into ceding a belief by making them conduct an action is not the same as denying them an action based on a belief.
Forcing people to do something is much different than preventing them from doing something.
So let's start with the ignorant western myth that is ever pervasive.
Stoning is not proscribed by Islam and the use of stoning as a punishment per adultery actual violates the Koran and thereby violating the Koran it violates Islam itself..
Stoning is not proscribed anywhere in the Koran. I safely say that the practice is culturally imposed, because that is the basis upon which it is used (Koran says 100 lashes)
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?
That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.
But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.
So you support the right to run a whites-only business?
You make a false statement: I stated specifically for religious reasons. Do you know of any religions that say "all races except white are going to hell"? I doubt it, unless its a super fringe thing that 99.99% of the population will never hear of. A hate group like the KKK or nazis are not religious, they are straight up hatemongering racists. This owner refuses on grounds of his religion: regardless of the fact that his view is unfortunate, we all still deserve our religious rights. My point of the opposing viewpoint is to show that if it was acceptable for service to be refused on the "God hates gays" cake due to a lifestyle choice, it would be damn expected that a person could refuse on grounds of religious view.
TL;DR- refusal based on religion is okay by me, refusal based on straight up racism is not. They're two different beasts, try not to lock them in the same cage.
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, the point I like best is the role reversal thing: if a Christian went to a cake shop owned by a gay person and wanted a cake made that said "God hates gays", would the owner have the right to refuse?
That's not an accurate comparison. The correct example would be a Christian going to a cake shop owned by a gay person and asking for a cake with a cross on it. And in that case the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse.
But even bigots should have the right to refuse if it goes against their religious views.
So you support the right to run a whites-only business?
Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?
This has nothing to do with race or even 'denial of service'.
As far as I'm concerned, and this is my position, every artist in the world has an unalienable right to object to subject matter, NO MATTER WHAT.
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.
But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.
Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)
timetowaste85 wrote: Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...
And Ronan and you don't?
I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.
Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)
Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing
timetowaste85 wrote: Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...
And Ronan and you don't?
I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.
Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)
Well, at least Ronan and I make a point when we argue and don't compare maple syrup to the moon just to get a rise out of people. Lol
Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing
44Ronin wrote: You write all of this but utterly skirt the issue; this is forcing people to cede their religious beliefs to accommodate someones lifestyle.
I skirt the issue because it's ultimately meaningless. Just say you don't like the sound of their voice, because shockingly you can deny a gay person service for pretty much any reason other than being gay. So go deny away.
But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.
Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)
The client (gay activist) specifically went to bakery that is named after bible verse asking for a commissioned artwork. Could it be any clearer that this rejection is intentionally provoked?
Artists should have the choice of association, should have the choice to reject the content of commissions.
Bottom line is that they have the right to cultivate their choice of work and be free to reject content for any reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Who the hell is ronan?
I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;
The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others
44Ronin wrote: Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?
The relation is that people keep claiming that there should be a right to refuse to do anything that conflicts with a person's beliefs. If that rule is consistently applied then it includes a right to run a whites-only business. So my question here is whether the people advocating this "right to refuse" policy will be consistent and support the racists, or only apply their rule to beliefs that they find acceptable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: You make a false statement: I stated specifically for religious reasons.
Why should religious beliefs be special?
Do you know of any religions that say "all races except white are going to hell"? I doubt it, unless its a super fringe thing that 99.99% of the population will never hear of.
What does being a fringe group have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs only applies to mainstream religious beliefs?
A hate group like the KKK or nazis are not religious, they are straight up hatemongering racists.
Depends on the group. Some of them are quite happy to cite religious justification for their racism.
My point of the opposing viewpoint is to show that if it was acceptable for service to be refused on the "God hates gays" cake due to a lifestyle choice, it would be damn expected that a person could refuse on grounds of religious view.
Except it isn't, because the cake in the real case is not the equivalent of "god hates gays", it's more like a cake with a plain cross on it and no hateful message (something that would be protected).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
44Ronin wrote: The client (gay activist) specifically went to bakery that is named after bible verse asking for a commissioned artwork. Could it be any clearer that this rejection is intentionally provoked?
And there were plenty of cases where rejections from whites-only businesses were deliberately provoked. The fact that a reaction may have been deliberately provoked does not change the fact that the reaction is illegal.
This really isn't the same as running a whites only business. That is a terrible analogy. They didn't say "Oh, you're gay? Get out of my store I am not doing business with your kind."
I'm sure if the fella would have asked to buy some cupcakes on his way out they'd have sold them to him.
Someone has to make that cake. That is artistry, even at a relatively low and edible level. You shouldn't have a legal recourse to force someone to create art on your behalf.
44Ronin wrote: Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?
The relation is that people keep claiming that there should be a right to refuse to do anything that conflicts with a person's beliefs. If that rule is consistently applied then it includes a right to run a whites-only business. So my question here is whether the people advocating this "right to refuse" policy will be consistent and support the racists, or only apply their rule to beliefs that they find acceptable.
They did not refuse the customer, they refused the content of the art. You are trying to think of the issue as the former, it's not.
Bromsy wrote: This really isn't the same as running a whites only business. That is a terrible analogy. They didn't say "Oh, you're gay? Get out of my store I am not doing business with your kind."
It's not analogy for this specific situation, it's a response to the claim that it's wrong to require a business owner to act against their beliefs. If that is true then you can't object to the whites-only business.
LordofHats wrote: I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;
I didn't bend any reality. You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..
Whether you think they work is of any merit or profundity is irrelevant, they create works of artistic nature ergo they are artists just like graphic designers are artists..
Are the characters of elmo and bert artistic, you know the thing that's been asked to be put on the cake?
The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others
Then why are we all posting? Oh that's right, it's the issue of subject matter of art the goes on the cake...
You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..
So is making fancy forks but neither are treated the same way as paintings or sculpture. Completely different businesses.
Then why are we all posting?
Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.
You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..
So is making fancy forks but neither are treated the same way as paintings or sculpture. Completely different businesses.
If you made personalized silverware, each set made to order, it would be much more similar.
Then why are we all posting?
Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.
Should a bakery have the right to deny service to someone for their sexual orientation? No. Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.
Jimsolo wrote: Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.
Why? Keep in mind that we're talking about customizing a mass-produced product, not creating the kind of works of art where you can legitimately say that the art is a reflection/extension of the artist's "soul". Decorating a cake is much closer to the "painting your house" end of the scale than the "making a painting destined for an art museum" end.
Jimsolo wrote: Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.
Why? Keep in mind that we're talking about customizing a mass-produced product, not creating the kind of works of art where you can legitimately say that the art is a reflection/extension of the artist's "soul". Decorating a cake is much closer to the "painting your house" end of the scale than the "making a painting destined for an art museum" end.
Who are you to say what art is relevant to the artist.
Kilkrazy wrote: When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.
No contest with this.
However:
The Intellectual Property Office doesn't establish moral rights for children in art classes at school (school premises, school authority, school materials, minor status) it is still art. Just as well as the last thing we want is little Timmy brought up for IP infringement because his stick crayon drawing matches one made in 1988.
Also the 'moral right of the author' applicability doesnt influence whether mandatory participation in the (art)work violates freedom of expression.
Kilkrazy wrote: When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.
I thought that only applied to written works anyway, depending on the country? Honest question, as most (all) of my law knowledge comes from Law and Order.
In any case I'll add cake decorating to my Maybe Art bucket, along with video games
Kilkrazy wrote: When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.
Why?
text deleted. If you can't comment without being rude then don't post.
reds8n
If you continue to post in this fashion you will be barred from the board
Legal Ownership has no relevance or bearing to art existing or not.
Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.
They did not deny service, as a commission itself was accepted, they simply denied the content of an artistic work after review.
Once again, the producers of art should not be held hostage to anyone.
Just because you are gay doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do.
It does when it comes to the Moral Right of the Author.
The dispute in this case is that the author of the purported artwork, namely a decorated cake, would have his religious beliefs besmirched by a gay slogan on it, thus can refuse to allow his artistic creation to be used for such a purpose.
Kilkrazy wrote: It does when it comes to the Moral Right of the Author.
Not having some red tape office grant you "rights" does not magically make your creations not-art.
You are also probably confusing the very term you are using.
The dispute in this case is that the author of the purported artwork, namely a decorated cake, would have his religious beliefs besmirched by a gay slogan on it, thus can refuse to allow his artistic creation to be used for such a purpose.
That's right.
Artists should not be dictated to by rights provocateurs.
Whether the guys ordering the cake were trying to provoke conflict is kind of beyond the point, unless all moral questions will now be answered by the question "do I think the person complaining is a douche." So what if they were purposely trying to provoke? They're a jerk. Whatever. It has no real bearing on the question at hand.
44Ronin wrote: Just because you are gay doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do.
I don't think that's even remotely close to the argument the plaintiff (or anyone supporting them) is making. Ignore the silliness that the above can be turned around to read "just because you don't like gays doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do" and it's a complete non sequitur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: We've been trying to establish that over several pages but it doesn't seem to be getting through.
Dakkadakka OT; Replying to your posts without reading them just cause
I've seen loads of penis and breast cakes at various parties, there is no shortage of bakeries willing to do pretty much anything in the UK, most would laugh and have fun making it and charging a large amount for it to be made.
In fact, you'd have to go to some effort to find one of the very few specifically devout Christian ones, one with Bible verse as the company name is an easy target.
I imagine the complainer as one of those "social justice warrior" people you see using "cis" or "breeder" as an insult online, the absolute last kind of person gay people in general want to see representing them.
The bakery should have declined service without a reason specified. They're not very smart to have stated it as being because of the content of the slogan.
Every other business in the UK does silent discrimination as standard, from HR departments hiring people to landlords. And in many cases the discrimination is much worse (no blacks, no poor, stopping them from getting a job or a house, not a damn cake) but it is carefully handled so as to make the company blameless from a legal perspective.
Of course, its an easy mistake for a small family business to make.
This sort of thing is eventually going to spoil it for everyone.
There won't be any custom cakes or any fun "draw X on the box" pizza order requests as everyone will be too scared of being sued into oblivion.
timetowaste85 wrote: Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...
And Ronan and you don't?
I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.
Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)
Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing
No, because the actual facts of the case are too boring and wouldn't make for a good social justice narrative.
cincydooley wrote: Never ceases to amaze me how freely the word bigot is tossed around these days.
It's about as meaningful as sexist, racist, Islamophobe, and homophobe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;
The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others
Who the hell is ronan?
A close friend of SpellingError
A decorated cake is still art. It can still be admired and appreciated for its artistic value, like any painting or ice sculpture. The fact that cakes have a temporary value that lasts only until it is eaten, and non edible art have a permanent value (well, many not ice sculpture) is irrelevant. I've seen some bloody amazing cakes that would not look out of place in an art gallery.
He'll, a couple weeks ago we visited my grandparents for my nanna's birthday and brought her a professionally made cake decorated to look like a large bunch of flowers. We could have put it in a flower pot and placed it in a garden and it would not have looked out of place.
I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize if I repeat stuff.
I am a baker, and I have done Gay weddings and events.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class. Around half the states in the US consider it a protected class, the other half do not. If the state or country considers sexual identity a protected class, then the Baker is out of luck.
However, I am curious how a "Closely Held" corporation (Such as a small bakery) could apply the new Supreme Court ruling around Hobby Lobby to such situations in the United States.
Also, baking is a craft not an art. Ice sculpture and metal working are also crafts. Just like most oil painters aren't artists, they are craftsman. Only the very best can elevate craft to Art.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
That's why this maybe going to court now isn't it.
If the person suing is not gay then how is it discrimination?
If the person is gay but they still make cakes then it is not discrimination.
If its a redneck and they just don't want to put the message on a cake then its not discrimination.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
That's why this maybe going to court now isn't it.
Right, but in the states, we had a case like this. There was someone who didn't want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples because he didn't want gay people using his cakes for weddings. He was found to be discriminating because he refused to sell to people based upon their protected class. Now he makes no wedding cakes period, which is his solution.
If the UK declares that people cannot turn away customized services based upon content, then so be it. All that will happen is people will refuse to customize products.
Indeed, there is a substantial difference between turning someone away because they are protected, and turning them away because of the messaging of the cake itself.
The group is protected. The message isn't. (at least unless you show some other law you free speech impairing Brits you...
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
Look at it this way; is the message on the cake not inextricably linked to the customer's protected class? They are a gay person asking for a cake with pro-gay imagery on it. To deny the customer based on the imagery on the cake is to deny the customer based on who they are. If I (a hetero white dude) asked the company to bake a cake with a pro-gay slogan on it and they refused, I would not be discriminated against, because I am not gay. The pro-gay imagery is not tied to my sense of self, it is just a political view I have. In that instance, yes, the slogan is a political thing and the refusal of service is a free speech issue.
But if I'm a gay guy asking for a pro-gay cake? Or a black guy asking for a cake to celebrate Martin Luther King Day? In those instances, the slogans and imagery are directly tied to my protected class, and a refusal of service because of the slogan is a refusal based on my protected class.
Frazzled wrote: Indeed, there is a substantial difference between turning someone away because they are protected, and turning them away because of the messaging of the cake itself.
The group is protected. The message isn't. (at least unless you show some other law you free speech impairing Brits you...
But if I'm a gay guy asking for a pro-gay cake? Or a black guy asking for a cake to celebrate Martin Luther King Day? In those instances, the slogans and imagery are directly tied to my protected class, and a refusal of service because of the slogan is a refusal based on my protected class.
If you say they can refuse to sell me a 'pro-gay' cake because I am straight due to the message but cannot refuse to sell me a 'pro-gay' cake if I were gay, then we have a serious issue in how the world works. So if a white person wanted a confederate flag cake, refusing to make it because you disagree with that content, is that discriminating against the 'core being' of the protected class too? White power is a message based upon someone's race, and race is a protected class... so refusing to promote their content based upon message tied to their race is illegal in your world? oh is it only for situations which you like the message? Hence thought police?
You cannot argue that content is ever a protected class. That flies in the face of free speech everywhere. Content is content, speech is speech, neither are protected classes, unless you feel it is ok to make some classes unable to ever have things said against them under penalty of law.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone. There is not difference whatever in refusing to sell a cake to someone who is gay and refusing to sell a gay cake to someone who is gay.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone.
But people are legally allowed to *be* bigots... that is why we have free speech. I am not saying it is not bigotry, it is just not discrimination. Refusing to make content with a message you disagree with is not discriminating by protected class, it is free speech. Denying service based upon protected class is discrimination, but that is not what is happening here as the people are allowed to buy cakes, just not with a custom message which the creators don't want to make.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone. There is not difference whatever in refusing to sell a cake to someone who is gay and refusing to sell a gay cake to someone who is gay.
Not at all the same... Refusing to make a cake with a gay slogan is not the same as refusing to sell anything to a gay person.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone. There is not difference whatever in refusing to sell a cake to someone who is gay and refusing to sell a gay cake to someone who is gay.
Cakes can be gay?
I now have a mental image of a blue cake humping another blue cake. Thanks for that.
Also...
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry
Theres that word again. Please try not to throw it around like confetti.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone.
But people are legally allowed to *be* bigots... that is why we have free speech. I am not saying it is not bigotry, it is just not discrimination. Refusing to make content with a message you disagree with is not discriminating by protected class, it is free speech. Denying service based upon protected class is discrimination, but that is not what is happening here as the people are allowed to buy cakes, just not with a custom message which the creators don't want to make.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone. There is not difference whatever in refusing to sell a cake to someone who is gay and refusing to sell a gay cake to someone who is gay.
Not at all the same... Refusing to make a cake with a gay slogan is not the same as refusing to sell anything to a gay person.
They can be bigots but they can't act as bigots in their public life
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is bigoted and illegal whether it has a slogan on it or not.
In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class.
Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.
There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone.
But people are legally allowed to *be* bigots... that is why we have free speech. I am not saying it is not bigotry, it is just not discrimination. Refusing to make content with a message you disagree with is not discriminating by protected class, it is free speech. Denying service based upon protected class is discrimination, but that is not what is happening here as the people are allowed to buy cakes, just not with a custom message which the creators don't want to make.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone. There is not difference whatever in refusing to sell a cake to someone who is gay and refusing to sell a gay cake to someone who is gay.
Not at all the same... Refusing to make a cake with a gay slogan is not the same as refusing to sell anything to a gay person.
They can be bigots but they can't act as bigots in their public life
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is bigoted and illegal whether it has a slogan on it or not.
It is legal to refuse to make a cake with the confederate flag which says 'white pride'.
It is illegal to refuse to sell cakes to white people.
There is a difference between speech, content and protected classes. It seems that if people 'like' the message, they feel that it is discrimination, and if the message is objectionable it is 'valid to refuse the job'. People can't seem to be consistent can they?
I would rather people have free speech and are allowed to be bigots than to have free speech trampled by thought police, especially since many of those self-appointed 'thought police' are just as bigoted as the bigots they claim to be rooting out.
They can be bigots but they can't act as bigots in their public life
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is bigoted and illegal whether it has a slogan on it or not.
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is not the same as refusing to make a cake with a message or content which you find morally objectionable.
If they had refused service because the people were gay, then you might have a point, like that case in Colorado. He refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone who would use them at a gay wedding. That was actual discrimination.
Edit: and it is also legal for people to dislike the policy of the bakery, and refuse to shop there... backing free-speech means sometimes bigots get to be bigots. I fear more from the thought police trying to criminalize unpopular opinions.
I now have a mental image of a blue cake humping another blue cake. Thanks for that.
I was thinking more of a cake you'd find in Mardi Gras at New Orleans, a nice brightly colored King Cake type (but lose the baby that kind of grosses me out)
nkelsch wrote: There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I think this is a fair distinction.
Indeed, he's arguing a fairly refined, dare I say legal distinction. Effecively in a free society you can't discriminate against people, but you can discriminate against ideas. Its an interesting argument.
They can be bigots but they can't act as bigots in their public life
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is bigoted and illegal whether it has a slogan on it or not.
Refusing to make a cake for a gay person is not the same as refusing to make a cake with a message or content which you find morally objectionable.
If they had refused service because the people were gay, then you might have a point, like that case in Colorado. He refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone who would use them at a gay wedding. That was actual discrimination.
Edit: and it is also legal for people to dislike the policy of the bakery, and refuse to shop there... backing free-speech means sometimes bigots get to be bigots. I fear more from the thought police trying to criminalize unpopular opinions.
nkelsch wrote: Not selling to a person due to their protected class is illegal. A message on a cake cannot be a protected class and is content and until there is legislated thought police, denying content is not the same as refusing to sell to someone based upon their class.There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I have never seen quite such a finely argued example of blatant bigotry in the DakkaDakka OT zone.
Does anyone else see the irony in a Mod labeling people as bigots?
nkelsch wrote: There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I think this is a fair distinction.
It's an awfully academic one in this instance, given that the primary market for cakes with "yay gay tolerance" on them just happens to be gay people and they are the primary people hurt by someone refusing to make such a cake.
Also, "political slogan" is absurdly loaded language - it's more or less defined by "controversy existing around the subject" rather than anything else, and it's not gay people causing the controversy.
Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.
Someone related question, is refusing to do somethig considered speech or is it only the act of doing something speech? I'm assuming refusing is considered speech as it also sends a message. I honestly don't know and am curious.
nkelsch wrote: There is a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or refusing to 'craft' a cake with a political slogan.
I think this is a fair distinction.
It's an awfully academic one in this instance, given that the primary market for cakes with "yay gay tolerance" on them just happens to be gay people and they are the primary people hurt by someone refusing to make such a cake.
Also, "political slogan" is absurdly loaded language - it's more or less defined by "controversy existing around the subject" rather than anything else, and it's not gay people causing the controversy.
the logo of a Belfast based campaign group named Queerspace
I'd say that counts as political for the purposes of this discussion.
-Shrike- wrote: It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.
Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?
You can't win can you.
Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.
Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.
-Shrike- wrote: It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.
Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?
You can't win can you.
Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.
Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.
Yes, I think we can all agree that straight people (and white people too, apparently? for some reason?) are the true victims here.
-Shrike- wrote: It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.
Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?
You can't win can you.
Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.
Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.
Yes, I think we can all agree that straight people (and white people too, apparently? for some reason?) are the true victims here.
It's not very tactful to start talking about how hard done by the majority group is in a thread about discrimination against a minority group, either, but here we are.
-Shrike- wrote: It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.
Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?
You can't win can you.
Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.
Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.
Refuse to reproduce any term is the end result we're headed towards.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It's not very tactful to start talking about how hard done by the majority group is in a thread about discrimination against a minority group, either, but here we are.
Relax it was just a joke about how even if a service provider does agree to produce,content that includes a potentially offensive word (queer, n***** etc), then they may risk complaints from a 3 rd party sticking it's nose in.
Besides, you and I clearly disagree about which group is being discriminated against here.
-Shrike- wrote: It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.
Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?
You can't win can you.
Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.
Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.
Refuse to reproduce any term is the end result we're headed towards.
A blanket refusal to produce any political content would be a wise precaution for any business to protect against social justice warriors with an axe to grind and hunting for compensation.
Kilkrazy wrote: They don't have the right to refuse for any reason, that is the thing.
You are wrong here, and your error highlights the tue injustice of the case.
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
Heard of people being banned from thier local GW (mainly kids). This is done by the manager and is legal, the child cannot demand GW staff give them entry.
Now the precedce set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.
Any legislation the legal standpoint which places a portion of society in a superior position to another outside of moral merit is discriminatory and a sign of a broken justice system.
Furthermore the reason for not serving the customer was due to non-participation in activities considered unpalletable according to the shopkeepers spiritual beliefs. It is none thing to request Christians or anyone else show tolerance of minorities with opposed viewpoints, its another to penalise for non-participation in activities promoting opposed viewpoints.
There is no evidence the shopkeepers would discriminate and be genuine bigots by refusing to sell cakes to gays per se, for that reason.
This is a tragic assault on personal liberty when someone is threatened with a lawsuit by a public body for expressing their legally held religious viewpoint by practicing non-participation in opposed activities.
1. If this was a bakery run by another protected minority, say Moslems, what would have happened.
2. Why should any minority have a protected status under law that gives them legal privilege not available to all. This is discrimination.
3. Why should we allow a society to label anyone that defends its right to practice its own lawful beliefs as bigots. It might be bogitted if the bakery somehow tried to stop the gays from being gay, however the bakers had every right to practice non-participation in the beliefs and values of differently aligned groups.
Our laws are 'middlingly bigoted' because politically correct legislation has criminalised non-participation in minority activities or beliefs, furthermore it unevenly enforces this. You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.
The bakery didnt even go as far as to refuse to bake cakes for gays, they refused to bake cakes with gay slogans, because they were being forced to proliferate messages they don't believe in. In any sane society a right of non-participation of an opposed viewpoint would be a reasonable point of right, until New Labour that would have been the position in the UK and minorities were not disadvantaged for it, they were just not unfairly advantaged.
1. If a Muslim refused to bake a gay cake I would be just as angry, and there would be just as many problems to fix.
2. What is this legal privilege sorry? Minorities have protected status because otherwise majorities (like Christianity, in our country) do all kinds of horrible things to them, including but not limited to not making them a cake.
3. Why should we allow a society to label anyone that defends its right to practice its own lawful beliefs as bigots? Because they are bigoted. They believe there is something wrong with being part of the minority group 'Gay', and do not wish to participate in spreading a message of equality for gay people, even when this is through being paid to make a cake in their public-facing business. The design was not obscene, it would not be offensive to anyone but a bigot.
Orlanth wrote: Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
No, they clearly can't, or this case wouldn't exist. Even if you believe that the bakery is right I don't think you're going to have much luck trying to run a whites-only business and claiming your right to refuse service to anyone you don't want to serve.
Now the precedce set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.
No, the precedent here is that shopkeepers can't refuse service to certain classes because of their minority status. For example, if a gay person is verbally abusing your cashier while demanding a refund or standing around telling all of your customers about the great deals your competition is offering then you're free to kick them out and you won't get any lawsuits.
Any legislation the legal standpoint which places a portion of society in a superior position to another outside of moral merit is discriminatory and a sign of a broken justice system.
There is no superior position. A bakery that refused to bake a cake with a simple cross on it for a Christian customer would be risking the exact same lawsuit. If discrimination lawsuits tend to go in certain directions more than others it's because discrimination tends to go that way.
Furthermore the reason for not serving the customer was due to non-participation in activities considered unpalletable according to the shopkeepers spiritual beliefs. It is none thing to request Christians or anyone else show tolerance of minorities with opposed viewpoints, its another to penalise for non-participation in activities promoting opposed viewpoints.
The bakery was not required to participate in any activities, they were only asked to provide a product that they sell.
d-usa wrote: Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.
That is exactly it.
The gay man wanted to buy a cake. He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare. Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.
Orlanth wrote: Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
No, they clearly can't, or this case wouldn't exist. Even if you believe that the bakery is right I don't think you're going to have much luck trying to run a whites-only business and claiming your right to refuse service to anyone you don't want to serve.
Under the law a shopkeeper can remove a customer from premises and refuse to serve without giving a reason. That is a flat fact.
This case indicates that that legal right has been perverted so that some customers have a superior position and the right to refuse service is overruled by political privilege.
Your comments on a whites only shop is facicious because it would be clearly wrong to discriminate on colour, it would also be wrong to discriminate on gender or sexuality. However none of those things occured. Clearly because the gay customers paid for the cake slogan at the shop they were accepted as customers, or they wouldnt have got that far, they were refused a specific service.
You see the bakers refused a specific order as one they could not perform, they did not refuse to serve gays. They are not bigots and are not discriminatory, they are victims of politically correct progressivism and lawsuit culture.
Now the precedence set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.
No, the precedent here is that shopkeepers can't refuse service to certain classes because of their minority status. For example, if a gay person is verbally abusing your cashier while demanding a refund or standing around telling all of your customers about the great deals your competition is offering then you're free to kick them out and you won't get any lawsuits.
No the indication here is that they gays could have a cake, they could not have that cake.
The bakery was not required to participate in any activities, they were only asked to provide a product that they sell.
No they dont sell those specific cakes, they sell cakes with custom slogans on them and chose to limit their service, not limit who they provided a service for.
Thought for all:
Had a black heterosexual friend ordered the cake on the gay customers behalf, which could happen, do we agree they would likely have been refused for the same stated reasons because the bakers couldn't agree to do the commission piece in their own conscience.
Does that make the shopkeepers discriminatory against straights.
If the gay was black would this be 'racism'?
d-usa wrote: Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.
That is exactly it.
The gay man wanted to buy a cake. He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare. Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.
This is illegal in the EU.
Not correct/
The gay man wanted to buy a cake.
- and they were welcome to have a cake because the bakers are not discriminatory. They took his order in tyhe shop after all.
He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare.
- and didnt get one because it had to be commissioned, and the commission work involved making something the baker felt violated his consceince and could not participate in.
Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.
- WRONG. He was not refused service because he was gay, because he was already gay when he went to the shop and received service, we know this because he was enabled to buy a cake. He had already paid, had he liked the regular cakes on offer he could have bought one, maybe he did.
We know this is true because a full refund was swiftly offered, and it was shortly collected.
This proves that this bakery is willing to sell cakes to gays and therefore does not discriminate. However they found themselves unable to fulfil a specific order, because the commission piece would have involved labouring on creating and proliferating pro-homosexuality slogans, which they are opposed to doing due to personal conscience.. This is a clear case of non-participation of opposed activities, not discrimination. This case makes claim that non-participation is no longer acceptable in the UK, which is a moral travesty and would remain one regardless of who the backers were. I would be supporting this point of view if the bakers were moslems, or gays and the customers something else. Though I doubt it would have got this far if the bakery was Islamic.
I put this back to you, what would have happened if the customer was straight and was asking for a service on a gay friends behalf? There is reason to suggest we would have got the same result, because it wasnt refusal of service due to the identity of the customer, it was non-participation of a commissioned piece of work. Something different.
It would still be discrimination against gay people because they refused to make the cake. A heterosexual male might have been buying the cake for his gay friends.
How would you know the customer was gay from ordering a cake in the first place? It is quite possible that the man who originally ordered the cake didn't mince through the door and begin to batter out double entendres or show tunes.
They were refused service because of how they wanted their cake decorated, the basis of the decoration being about supporting gay marriage. As many people have pointed out, multiple times, this is not allowed.
d-usa wrote: Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.
They wrote a letter explaining their position, which while admirably honest was a mistake as regards the law.
The fact is in the UK a business can be taken to a tribunal for unfair discrimination based on evidence. There doesn't have to be a specific victim, just evidence implying discrimination.
In this case, if a non-gay customer overheard the shop assistant saying they would never make a cake for a gay man, or a gay cake, that would be evidence and if reported the Equality and Human Rights Commission might take the case to tribunal if the evidence was thought strong enough.
Situations like this have happened.
I know this because I went on several discrimination courses when working at Sony.
"It was the subject matter, not the person" is not a good argument. The people who want gay tolerance cakes are overwhelmingly going to be gay. They are the ones who will be affected.
It's just a rehashing of the disingenuous gay marriage thing - "gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."
Medium of Death wrote: It would still be discrimination against gay people because they refused to make the cake. A heterosexual male might have been buying the cake for his gay friends.
They were refused service because of how they wanted their cake decorated, the basis of the decoration being abort supporting gay marriage. As many people have pointed out, multiple times, this is not allowed.
1. Shopkeepers can refuse service without reason, that is the law.
2. And they were refused a specific commissioned service due to religious conscience.
This is not discriminatory because:
1. It would be discriminatory if they were not permitted to buy any cakes to begin with because they were gay.
2. However gays were accepted as customers, we know this is true because it happened. Whether the shopkeeper realised the customer are gay or not is not relevant as that would require thought policing, and in any cases would be unprovable. There is reasonable doubt that the bakers understood that some customers were gay, and that it did not effect regular sales policy.
3. A specific commissioned service was refused, which is to say a specific piece of work that has to be laboured upon post sale.
This is saying that those who perform commissioned work are disallowed to apply their own consciences anymore if the client is gay (or has another privvileged status).
This would be an unheard of position with regards to commissioned work, the conscience of the craftsman/artist is always relevant and people should not be mandated to create pieces that violate their conscience.
They haven't been up until now.
d-usa wrote: Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.
Again they didn't refuse to sell the cake because the client was gay, they refused to sell the cake dependent on how it was to be customised. This is clear enough.
It is also a completely seperate act. The cakes are baked as a 'blank canvass' the printed icing is a separate service, AFAIK you bake a cake before icing it. If not its still a separate procedure and ancillary to the normal baking process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: They wrote a letter explaining their position, which while admirably honest was a mistake as regards the law.
Medium of Death wrote: Surely them stating their position only makes the bakey's action worse? (Honest question rather than a challenge)
No, it showed that they were working out of moral integrity not hatred.
This doesn't show any pattern of bigotry or homophobia, just honest craftsmen trying to ply a trade and practice non-participation in morally opposed activities. I hope the court sees it that way, and is still enabled to. The fact that they were provably willing to accept gay customers shows them in good stead, it will be an interesting test case.
There have been several similar cases in the past few years, involving religious I hesitate to use the word "activism" but I cannot think of a more appropriate term. In mean similar in the sense that people in public service jobs wanting to be treated differently or to treat people differently due to their religious convictions.
For example, the BA stewardess with her crucifix, and the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships.
There have been several similar cases in the past few years, involving religious I hesitate to use the word "activism" but I cannot think of a more appropriate term. In mean similar in the sense that people in public service jobs wanting to be treated differently or to treat people differently due to their religious convictions.
The result of this will be interesting.
It is not really fair to consider non-participation activism, it's passive politics/religion. An activist approach would far more likely have crossed the line into homophobia and would lose support and credibility.
This case is an most insidious application of 'equality' legislation, it doesn't promote equality, it promotes a privileged position. Amongst those whom understand New Labour and what it stood for this is no surprise.
This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.
It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.
This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.
It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.
So if you make something you have to serve it whatever the message is eh?
As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.
The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.
Kilkrazy wrote: As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.
The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.
Whose rights should take precedence?
The Christian should go to another garage and not complain.
Therefore I would support the Hindu in this case.
Because the right to refuse service is standard in retail law, claiming examptiojn and demandings monies in compensation for not doing so is a privileged position.
Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service. Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.
This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.
No it would not, and a pro-choice baker would be in his rights to non-participate. Which is separate from refusing to sell to Christians because of bigotry, and ought not to be seen as such. In any case I doubt equality agencies would get involved, as equality does not mean what it says.
Lets take another case to show this:
The classic story of the moslem shop worker who refused to sell cigarettes. The shop apologised but there was no equalities agency raising a lawsuit or objection in any way This case is different, the cigarettes were clearly on sale, the shop staff in order to do their job was expected to sell them, but refused. But ultimately there was no lawsuit or pressure from equalities agencies.
Note that the Moslem Council condemned her actions, for a start there is no law in Islam against tobacco, second they thought it improper.
It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.
The opposite is true actually. Christians are asking for their opinions to be respected, pro-gay opinions are already respected. Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. Thwey want to keep their opinions to themselves.
besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation
Kilkrazy wrote: As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.
The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.
Whose rights should take precedence?
Rights of the mechanic. He's not discriminating against the Christian symbol or (lets assume) the Christian.
As Batman once said. "I don't have to kill you. I just down't have to help you."
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.
Kilkrazy wrote: As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.
The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.
Whose rights should take precedence?
Under the law of England and Wales it would be unlawful for the mechanic to refuse service to the customer. He could set up a company that actively sought Hindu customers but would not be able to turn away non-Hindu customers. If however he ran a company that had a legitimate reason for restricting membership, then he would be allowed to turn away people from those groups. A mechanics isn't a religious or faith based enterprise, so it would be unlawful for him to deny service on religious grounds.
Kilkrazy wrote: As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.
The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.
Whose rights should take precedence?
Rights of the mechanic. He's not discriminating against the Christian symbol or (lets assume) the Christian.
As Batman once said. "I don't have to kill you. I just down't have to help you."
But this is what the 'cake mechanic' is not allowed to do. Because of privileged status.
As Batman might find out, "I don't have to kill you. but because Penguins are now have legal privileged status, Gotham city can crack down on me if I refuse to help you."
Funny how legally enforced privileged status are the results of 'equality' legislation.
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.
The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals. Thats not all fair and equal isnt it. Dogmataised equalities legislation doesnt not lead to equality, it leads to creation of priviliged status for some under law and uneven rights and enforcement.
Still as pointed out we have a separate case, the customers were not refused service because they were gay, they were refused a specific service on grounds of conscience and their identities were not relevant to this point.
Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service.
On what grounds are they refused service? If they were discriminated against because they were straight, or white, or Christian, then they have every right to launch a case for discrimination.
Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.
It would be if it worked like that but it doesn't. You don't seem to grasp that this isn't about one group being a minority, it is about a group being discriminated against for a particular unlawful reason.
The classic story of the moslem shop worker who refused to sell cigarettes. The shop apologised but there was no equalities agency raising a lawsuit or objection in any way This case is different, the cigarettes were clearly on sale, the shop staff in order to do their job was expected to sell them, but refused. But ultimately there was no lawsuit or pressure from equalities agencies. Note that the Moslem Council condemned her actions, for a start there is no law in Islam against tobacco, second they thought it improper.
Could you point out who is being discriminated against here? and for what reason? Is it the cigarettes? the tobacco company? every customer who comes in regardless of who they are?
This is fundamentally an issue between the manager and staff member, people can ask for concessions in the work place much like Christians refusing to work sundays and leaving other staff members to work unsociable hours that they never have to.
Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. Thwey want to keep their opinions to themselves.
Are gay people calling for pro-Christian opinions to be banned? When did this happen?
besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation
If you were to drop the martyr act you might realise that there are lots of religious events in the UK in 2014, remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.
The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals. Thats not all fair and equal isnt it. Dogmataised equalities legislation doesnt not lead to equality, it leads to creation of priviliged status for some under law and uneven rights and enforcement.
Still as pointed out we have a separate case, the customers were not refused service because they were gay, they were refused a specific service on grounds of conscience and their identities were not relevant to this point.
What original law stands?
There was me thinking white was a race and heterosexual was a sexual orientation. As I have already said, you don't seem to grasp what the actual law is. Minorities do not have a protected status, everyone has the right to not be discriminated against for reasons of age, disability, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Everyone, equally.
So if refusing to make a 'pro-gay' cake is discriminating against homosexuals even if the customer is heterosexual, then that means it is illegal to refuse to make a 'White Power' or 'God hates gays' cakes because that would be discriminating against race and religion.
Pretty much anyone who is is any protected class (which is everyone) who believes anything now has a right to force their messages on any cake ever and claim discrimination. If I believe it enough and it relates to an attribute of my being which is a protected class, then I can force my speech down anyone's throat and there is nothing they can do about it?
If that is how the UK works, I am glad I don't live there. That is not how it works in the US.
Kilkrazy wrote: You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.
It is discriminating on a message tied to a protected class and messages tied to a protected class by the arguments here are 100% the same as discriminating against the protected class. So you say there is currently legislation which makes all religions positions illegal?
So now it is messages which are tied to protected class which the thought police happen to like?
This is the problem of freedom of speech, you can't have it both ways. If someone wants a cake expressing white pride and that is a message tied to his race, and you refuse because it is offensive... then there has to be a list somewhere of government deeming specific speech wrong...
Or speech is not protected class, and refusing to make a message is not the same as discriminating against a protected class even if they are related. You can't have mandatory pro-gay cakes but then refuse other content tied to protected classes simply because you find it repugnant. Either it is all mandatory or it is all allowed to be discretionary based upon content.
The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals.
No. If a shop refused to serve someone because they were white or heterosexual they would be committing an offense under the same law. There is no special privilege for any particular group under discrimination laws.
nkelsch wrote: Pretty much anyone who is is any protected class (which is everyone) who believes anything now has a right to force their messages on any cake ever and claim discrimination. If I believe it enough and it relates to an attribute of my being which is a protected class, then I can force my speech down anyone's throat and there is nothing they can do about it?
If that is how the UK works, I am glad I don't live there. That is not how it works in the US.
You can ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look at any case you deem worthy, they then decide whether to take it further. Or if you have the cash you can raise your own civil case, but that will cost you dearly if it proves to be frivolous.
Kilkrazy wrote: You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.
It is discriminating on a message tied to a protected class and messages tied to a protected class by the arguments here are 100% the same as discriminating against the protected class.
So now it is messages which are tied to protected class which the thought police happen to like?
This is the problem of freedom of speech, you can't have it both ways. If someone wants a cake expressing white pride and that is a message tied to his race, and you refuse because it is offensive... then there has to be a list somewhere of government deeming specific speech wrong...
Or speech is not protected class, and refusing to make a message is not the same as discriminating against a protected class even if they are related. You can't have mandatory pro-gay cakes but then refuse other content tied to protected classes simply because you find it repugnant. Either it is all mandatory or it is all allowed to be discretionary based upon content.
The message itself would then be discriminatory. You would not be forced to make a black power cake, or a cake with an "Heterosexuals should die" or something else anti heterosexual (If such a thing exists. Given the things that exist on the deep dark corners of the net it wouldn't supprise me)
The message itself would then be discriminatory. You would not be forced to make a black power cake, or a cake with an "Heterosexuals should die" or something else anti heterosexual (If such a thing exists. Given the things that exist on the deep dark corners of the net it wouldn't supprise me)
Messages can't be discriminatory... Now this is just silly...
White Pride can have no disparaging aspects to it but still be offensive and stupid... how do you refuse? Where does it say that a cake for white pride is bad but a cake for Hispanic heritage is ok. I can tell you there are a lot of groups who believe in racial purity as core tenants of their faith and culture... and they celebrate it regularly but yet they are not called out on it.
And by your argument all religious ideas are banned because you deem them 'discriminatory' by their very nature would be discriminatory on the surface against other religions which are protected classes. A 'Pro-gay' cake is actually discriminatory against those who have religious beliefs which believe it is a sin... and those religious beliefs make it a protected class therefor that message is also 'discriminatory' under your definition...
So basically you can refuse content and discriminate against protected classes as long as it is a message or class you deem worthy of 'discriminating' against. This is where you get into oppressing free speech and legislating censorship. What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
Of course content is important, are you claiming that a written statement somehow doesn't count as a statement?
Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service.
On what grounds are they refused service? If they were discriminated against because they were straight, or white, or Christian, then they have every right to launch a case for discrimination.
The grounds of non-participation. As shown the identity of the individual was not in question. Minority status demands the question otherwise absent.
When someone is banned from a pub 'your only doing this cos I'm white' doesn't wash, if there person has a minority status or other privilege an investigation is not unlikely.
Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.
It would be if it worked like that but it doesn't. You don't seem to grasp that this isn't about one group being a minority, it is about a group being discriminated against for a particular unlawful reason.
I grasp perfectly well, no group is being discriminated against. The purchases of the cake is irrelevant to the message. The bakers practiced non-participation in a opposed activity, not an action curtailing or discriminatng against said activities.
Could you point out who is being discriminated against here? and for what reason? Is it the cigarettes? the tobacco company? every customer who comes in regardless of who they are?
The relevant is the special inclusion of privileged status.
someone who wants a cake doesnt get it because of Christian values gets support from equalities agencies and legal action.
someone who wants some cigarettes doesnt get it because of Moselm values gets no support from equalities agencies.
This is fundamentally an issue between the manager and staff member, people can ask for concessions in the work place much like Christians refusing to work sundays and leaving other staff members to work unsociable hours that they never have to.
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week. I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
Christians are advised to only exercise their rights after gaining employment, because of the prevelenance of indirect discrimination. In the second instance the agency made the wrok around of quoting Sundays as rota days and asking if I was able to work Sundays. I could either lie, and then have grounds for dismissal against me, or tell the truth and face direct illegal action.
Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. They want to keep their opinions to themselves.
Are gay people calling for pro-Christian opinions to be banned? When did this happen?
Yes, some gay activists are.
The phenomena took off under New Labour with uneven rights religlation that selectively empowered some over others. The Christians have been singled out under New Labour, but that was for an disestablishmentariam agenda which has remarkably little to do with core Christian beleifs or homosexaulity and everything to do with de-anglicisation of the Uk to make the Labour party a more palettable option in England. A longer explanation requires more detail.
In any event some activists notably amongst the more extreme atheist and gay communities have jumped on this opportunity.
Case in point when Cameron mentioned that 'the UK was still a Christian country, which he did as part of the move to limit de-Anglicisation and not out of any Christian priniciple per se the comments while widely received even with cross relgion support were condemned by gay and atheist activists in unison.
People like Pater Tatchill have an undisguised hate on for religion in general and Christianity in particular and frequently make (political) bedfellows with the hardcore atheist movement. and yes some do want Christiainty or at least the church removed completely.
besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation
If you were to drop the martyr act you might realise that there are lots of religious events in the UK in 2014, remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.
There is no 'martyr act', if you cant argue respectfully get off the thread.
I am aware of the fact there are religious events in the UK, as I have been to a few. They are not political, were they in any way homophobic the state would likely step on them without mercy, as the government of the day were looking for excuses.
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.
Thr troubles are a race politics issue not a religious one. You find me a quote from the bible that supports the Orange Order fanaticism, or that of the Nationalist 'catholic' community and I will revise that statement.
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
Of course content is important, are you claiming that a written statement somehow doesn't count as a statement?
But every message which is 'pro' is going to have a camp of people who are 'con'... and a 'pro' message is going to be discriminatory' against the group of 'con'. people.
If messages can be discriminatory and therefor not produced because they are discriminating against a protected class, then a 'pro-gay' slogan is discriminating against anyone who believes in an anti-gay' position which happens to be religions which are a protected class.
Being a message you happen to like vs a repugnant offensive one like a white-power cake makes no difference, unless you are subjecting all speech to a government censored thought police.
Discrimination happens against people. No one was discriminated against in this case. Refusing to make a custom message is not the same as refusing service due to protected class. Tying the two together leads to some logical absurdities, double standards and requires thought police to determine which messages tied to protected class are ok to not make and which ones are discrimination.
And talk to a Jewish mother about 'racial purity' sometime... I personally find racial purity in any culture horribly offensive and destructive to society but lots of religions and cultures (outside the white power movement) believe it and celebrate it to this day. This is where one moves from 'the speech is discriminatory, ban it' to 'the speech is unpopular and we don't like it because it discriminates against something I like, ban it"
Refusing to make a custom product with speech you disagree with is free speech and is not denying service based upon a protected class... Refusing to sell a cake because someone is gay is discrimination against protected class, refusing to sell a cake because of a pro-gay message is not discriminating against gays any more than refusing to sell a confederate flag cake is discriminating against whites. If you believe it works that way, then the whole system breaks down. Jut admit you want unpopular positions censored by the government and no freedom of speech and move on, not try to make examples why you think it is wrong in one situation but ok in others.
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week. I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
Christians are advised to only exercise their rights after gaining employment, because of the prevelenance of indirect discrimination. In the second instance the agency made the wrok around of quoting Sundays as rota days and asking if I was able to work Sundays. I could either lie, and then have grounds for dismissal against me, or tell the truth and face direct illegal action.
So what you are saying is that you are upset because someone did something that is illigal and you did nothing about it?
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
Strange that, since jehovas witnesses are quite able to hand out leaflets in central London with no one looking over them...
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you at all. If that were true the Jihad ones would fall under promotion of terrorism laws, like this:
nkelsch wrote: unless you are subjecting all speech to a government censored thought police.
your viewing the world as very black and white to suit your world view. We have managed in the UK for over a thousand years without freedom of speech laws. Weather you like it or not many people do not thing the US system is the best way to go and their should be some limits.
your viewing the world as very black and white to suit your world view. We have managed in the UK for over a thousand years without freedom of speech laws. Weather you like it or not many people do not thing the US system is the best way to go and their should be some limits.
I am sure those limits are reasonable, when you are the class in charge and you agree with the majority opinion. Such behavior helps keep those classes and majorities in power as well.
Considering most of the worlds problems in the 20th century are based off a racist European imperialist doctrine and the problems it left around the world, I 'question' the worth of the UK and its like 'managing for 1000 years without free speech laws'. If I was going to error on one side of the free speech coin, I would rather too much than not enough.
As a business owner of a bakery, you are fool if you turn down cakes from Gay people. They are a great demo for a bakery for a lot of reasons. I question this bakers commitment to Capitalism... they might be a closet Socialist!
Easy E wrote: Well this thread has become very circular.
As a business owner of a bakery, you are fool if you turn down cakes from Gay people. They are a great demo for a bakery for a lot of reasons. I question this bakers commitment to Capitalism... they might be a closet Socialist!
Agreed. And since we're talking socialists let end this with a bang.
So what you are saying is that you are upset because someone did something that is illigal and you did nothing about it?
No I am debunking comments that this is about my 'martyrdom', and the flat denial that Christians get uneven treatment.
This was why my own experiences of discrimination were aired, because someone assumed there is no anti-Christian discrimination.
I am not however upset (why would you project this onto me) the dicrimination against me that I mentioned here was in 1998.
Not am I posting purely on account of personal experiences (I gave my reasons for several pages and with no mentikon of my own case).
I can see why you would like to assume that I am here because of some secret anger, by projecting an image that I am not being rational it absolves you of forwarding an intelligent argument. Standard ad hominemBS. But I would appreciate it if you didnt try to take wild guesses at my motives, especially when they are derogatory and far off the mark.
Strange that, since jehovas witnesses are quite able to hand out leaflets in central London with no one looking over them...
Not strange at all. Street venues need no permits, council owned shopping centers do. Also as stated some religious groups are left alone others are interfered with, and this doesn't necessarily involve actual risk or discriminatory attitude. Jehovahs Witnesses are generally left alone, there aren't that many and they have no power base. Islam is left alone too often because authorities are afraid to challenge it. Some authorities feel they have to be seen to do something though and so target the churches, however often its just the usual hate on that a lot of people have for Christianity.
That shouldnt be hard to understand, there is plenty of that on Dakka, the world outside is little different.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you at all. If that were true the Jihad ones would fall under promotion of terrorism laws, like this:
The incidents mention were in 2001. The Islamic group in my home town that used the same outside venue was Al-Mouhaijiroun, which was eventually banned, but only in 2010.
Any web search on thier activities will show that they are not especially nice people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun Eventually there were crackdowns on terror group apologists, but there were crackdowns on innocent churches a lot sooner.
If you can find me links to show the UK Pentecostal and Charismatic churches promote holy war on our streets?
Remember this guy
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach in and out of mosques for many years before he was arrested.
Abu Hamza prached violence against Jews and others openly, even the BBC recorded it. He was finally arrested only in 2004
You can even see policemen standing around while he was preaching that Jews were Satanic.
This was symptomic of the times, at the slightest complaint a Christian preacher could be arrested, while those calling for jihad on our streets are free to continue about their business.
Whether you choose to believe my own eye witness statement is up to you, but dont deny that this sort of incident occurs and that faiths were and indeed are handled entirely differently and not on merit.
Preaching Christianity or supporting a Christian message openly can lead to arrest, Jihad is preached openly in the UK, and it is not stopped, , but only those who go on jihad are arrested, and often not even then.
What would happen if preachers called for a violent Crusade? Thrown in jail, and church closed next day I guess.
In any case give up the idea that its all in my head, it isn't; there is open and incontrovertible evidence that Islam and Christianity are handled very differently in the UK, and not on merit.
Christians get short changed on justice a lot of the time, these bakers are one such instance.
Orlanth wrote:When someone is banned from a pub 'your only doing this cos I'm white' doesn't wash, if there person has a minority status or other privilege an investigation is not unlikely.
You basing that assertion from your years of experience working for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission? Or a series of questionable articles in the right wing press you have read?
I grasp perfectly well, no group is being discriminated against. The purchases of the cake is irrelevant to the message. The bakers practiced non-participation in a opposed activity, not an action curtailing or discriminatng against said activities.
Please find me where the ECHR or the Human Rights Act allow for provisions for cases of "non participation" to be immune from all human rights legislation. Here's a tip to save you some time, no such thing exists.
Saying 'I understand perfectly well and then repeating what you said earlier is generally not the best idea. Here is a page you may find interesting, but for the benefit of everyone I will quote the relevant bit
Equalities and Human Rights Commission wrote:"Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief"
That applies for all rights, be it age, gender or any of the others.
The relevant is the special inclusion of privileged status.
someone who wants a cake doesnt get it because of Christian values gets support from equalities agencies and legal action.
someone who wants some cigarettes doesnt get it because of Moselm values gets no support from equalities agencies.
Who said anything abut "priviledged status, which isn't a thing in English law. There are people with protected status, but that falls under the Equalities Act, which noone here is referring to otherwise we would have to include pregnant women.
This is a non-story that has nothing to do with anything, I don't even know why you brought it up other than a sort of "look at the Muslims, look at how many rights they have that we highly privileged white male Telegraph readers don't have" thing. A person refuses to sell cigarettes, nobody is being discriminated against, I thought that might have got through from my previous questions, but guess not.
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week.
Wait so you refuse some unsociable hours and they make you work different unsociable hours rather than a tuesday afternoon, better call up the European Court, that seems a cut and dried case of discrimination there.
I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
No, you were unlawfully refused employment, not illegally, there is a difference there. Did you contact the EHRC or the EHSS on this matter, as you would have a legitimate case here.
Yes, some gay activists are.
The phenomena took off under New Labour with uneven rights religlation that selectively empowered some over others. The Christians have been singled out under New Labour, but that was for an disestablishmentariam agenda which has remarkably little to do with core Christian beleifs or homosexaulity and everything to do with de-anglicisation of the Uk to make the Labour party a more palettable option in England. A longer explanation requires more detail.
In any event some activists notably amongst the more extreme atheist and gay communities have jumped on this opportunity.
Can we keep the tin foil hat Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens liberal conspiracy nonsense to a minimum please. Try to focus on things you can back up with actual documents that aren't editorials in the Mail or Telegraph.
Case in point when Cameron mentioned that 'the UK was still a Christian country, which he did as part of the move to limit de-Anglicisation and not out of any Christian priniciple per se the comments while widely received even with cross relgion support were condemned by gay and atheist activists in unison.
People like Pater Tatchill have an undisguised hate on for religion in general and Christianity in particular and frequently make (political) bedfellows with the hardcore atheist movement. and yes some do want Christiainty or at least the church removed completely.
I wasn't aware that Peter Tatchell made policy in the UK, what is the name of his role in Government and does it put him above or below the 21 Priests who sit in the House of Lords because of that whole 'Lords Spiritual' state religion thing.
I am aware of the fact there are religious events in the UK, as I have been to a few. They are not political, were they in any way homophobic the state would likely step on them without mercy, as the government of the day were looking for excuses.
But as I have pointed out, gay pride is not an anti Christian event. You are making false comparisons.
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
So you were following them the entire time to see they weren't questioned? Or did you just make an assumption? What has the content of their leaflet got to do with you? Do you feel it breaks laws on hate speech? Then please raise the issue with the police, otherwise I suggest you find better things to do with your time.
Equality, yeah right.
Thinking of yourself as a victim because you are in a naturally privileged position and other people get more attention because they have real cases of real discrimination doesn't change the fact that you have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else.
Thr troubles are a race politics issue not a religious one. You find me a quote from the bible that supports the Orange Order fanaticism, or that of the Nationalist 'catholic' community and I will revise that statement.
Where does the sect in sectarianism come from again?
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach in and out of mosques for many years before he was arrested.
Abu Hamza prached violence against Jews and others openly, even the BBC recorded it. He was finally arrested only in 2004
You can even see policemen standing around while he was preaching that Jews were Satanic.
Which was because of a specific policy called the Covenant of Security which allowed extremists in Britain on the condition they did not carry out attacks on British soil. This policy failed and should have been shut down in the mid 90s.
In 1999 a preacher was arrested for preaching on the steps of a cathedral, and charged. His conviction, was quashed on appeal.
You know what quashed on appeal means right?
Preaching Christianity or supporting a Christian message openly can lead to arrest,
No, 'acting in a manner which may cause a breach of the peace' can lead to arrest, and yes that is intentionally as vague as it needs to be for police to get away with pretty much anything.
What would happen if preachers called for a violent Crusade? Thrown in jail, and church closed next day I guess.
I would imagine they would be put on a list, and spied on while being allowed to carry on, thats the thing with law, you need some evidence of wrongdoing for the CPS to get a conviction.
You basing that assertion from your years of experience working for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission? Or a series of questionable articles in the right wing press you have read?
I dont see which of your arguments are more ridiculous, that the politicised Equalities quangos are impartial, or that all the articles are either 'questionable' or entirely 'right wing press'.
So you are going to the head in sand approach. Handwave all arguments away are hysterical, even if videos by the BBC.
Also just because the Guardian refuses to cover these sort of stories doesn't mean they have no validity or do not occur.
Equalities and Human Rights Commission wrote:"Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief"
That applies for all rights, be it age, gender or any of the others.
Indeed, however the bakers refused a specific service, they would have refused that sefvice to anyone.
Also there is no evidence that the bakers would refuse regular service to anyone, we have evidence at least they serve gays in their bakery because they took the order before realising that the content of the order violated their ethos.
Can we keep the tin foil hat Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens liberal conspiracy nonsense to a minimum please. Try to focus on things you can back up with actual documents that aren't editorials in the Mail or Telegraph.
I havent quoted Melanie Phillips of Peter Hitchens, I gave links to actual events, and only some were covered in Mail or Telegraph. Besides what is inherently wrong with quoting from the Telegraph.
I wasn't aware that Peter Tatchell made policy in the UK, what is the name of his role in Government and does it put him above or below the 21 Priests who sit in the House of Lords because of that whole 'Lords Spiritual' state religion thing.
Well you arent aware of much.
Peter Tachell like a number of lobbyists can wield indirect influence. That is what lobbying is for. Whwen Camerion made his commentary that the Uk was a Christian country Tatchell and many others joined the petition against the statement.
besides where did I imply Tatchell was in government position, clearly you are confused..
You are certainly unaware that the current CoE is not as it was. CoE bishops are political appointments, Christianity is not required, especailly under New Labour. When Williams was elevated to Archbishop of Canterbury Blair refused the appointment 14 times until he got the man he wanted, namely someone who had little or no interest in church issues, and could be relied upon to be very wooly and not make waves.
Have you actually ever met a Bishop? The current lot are often more New Labour than the MP's.
So you were following them the entire time to see they weren't questioned? Or did you just make an assumption? What has the content of their leaflet got to do with you? Do you feel it breaks laws on hate speech? Then please raise the issue with the police, otherwise I suggest you find better things to do with your time.
I collected the leaflets out of interest as to what might be preached. I didnt follow them the whole time, nor did I need to. Every weekend Al Mouhajiroun was at the venue they placed their stall in the same place, right in the middle of the through traffic, the council have every opportunity to stop that. My first point was that the churches were expressly forbidden from doing that, the Islamists were not.
Second Al Mouhajiroun is well known to law enforcement authorities, it nothing new to anyone that the preached jihad.
Third why do you expect me or anyone else not to be concerned, I am not your peon. If I see the interest to collect flyers handed out by Islamic fundamentalists to see their content what is it to you. It is of interest to any open minded man to see what is going on in the world. and the comparison of activities is valid and how different groups are treated
Why assume I am doing wrong by collecting the information.
Besides why would I complain, what good would it do.
Thinking of yourself as a victim because you are in a naturally privileged position and other people get more attention because they have real cases of real discrimination doesn't change the fact that you have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else.
What naturally privileged position? You must be insane.
As for real cases of discrimination. Again I pointed out known well documented cases of Christian prwachers being areasted just for pereacghing, while also showing evidence of jihadis call for anti-Semitic violence in full vierw of the police without arrest.
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Clearly you lack and elementary logical understanding of the point of mounting a comparison.
Where does the sect in sectarianism come from again?
Race, after all sectarianism its just a word.
Sectarianism occurs when there is a violent racial divide, often using religion as an excuse. However its not an acrtuial relgious issue, but a racial one. This is why you get sectarianism in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, but in most other places where you have catholics and protestants living together you don't.
The race issue is compounded by the polarisation which prevents intermarriage.
In the case of Glasgow the two main factions of 'catholic and protestant', are more closely defined by their football team than by any church. the main divide in that city is Rangers vs Celtic, and it can get VERY nasty, the religion is just a backstory, few go to any form of church, and fewer yet practice what those religions say.
Which was because of a specific policy called the Covenant of Security which allowed extremists in Britain on the condition they did not carry out attacks on British soil. This policy failed and should have been shut down in the mid 90s.
Well this explains why they were in thed country, it doesn't explain why they were not arrested for crimes. The Covenant of Security did not give carte blanche to ignore UK law.
[No, 'acting in a manner which may cause a breach of the peace' can lead to arrest, and yes that is intentionally as vague as it needs to be for police to get away with pretty much anything.
Indeed, however saying Jews are Satanic was somehow not breaching the peace, you are clutching at straws.
Besides in these instances the charges were eventually dropped or appealed against.
Yet in some cases especailly the third case from Perth, the preacher was arrested at least twice on separate occasions. Once for using a loudhailer, when he was not, but the busker down the street (who was not arrested) was.
I would imagine they would be put on a list, and spied on while being allowed to carry on, thats the thing with law, you need some evidence of wrongdoing for the CPS to get a conviction.
Apprantly not if you just are a street preacher. Besides the CPS determines charges not convictions, and they are more than happy from evidence to press charges brought by police for preaching, but still the Islamics get to preach their jihad...
No matter how you try to slice this, its grossly discriminatory, and smacks of large scale abuse and uneven handling.
I will end up with this one:
In my home town a street preacher was set upon by four Islamic teenagers because they didnt like his message. The police intervened before the violence got too bad (they had hit him) and arrested the preacher for disturbing the peace, the teenagers went on their way.
Sometimes law enforcement finds the easy way out, not the just way out.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
What is the point of this thread anymore?
There are two very obvious camps here, and both of them are just saying the same things over and over and no one is convincing anyone because the point of difference is a single very specific idea.
Let it work itself out, for now we are all just wasting our time.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. And an idea, not an actual action is 'discriminatory' then it is illegal means all religion in the UK is illegal simply at the 'idea' level because core aspects of most belief systems, including athiesim discriminates... Hence content or beliefs are not the same as discriminating against a protected class. To tie the two together results in bullcrap situations where a straight person wants to buy a pro-gay marriage cake, and is denied and you claim 'discrimination against homosexuals' when there is no actual homosexual involved in the purchase.
Basically the government can put a gun to your head and basically say 'you must make propaganda for whatever cause a paying customer wants.'
And this is why people left Europe and made a country founded on freedom of speech, because that type of behavior is a slippery slope to some really terrible thought police.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
How is a picture of Eric and Ernie a political slogan?
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. ...
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
In the US they have not broken a law, to see if they have broken a UK law has yet to be seen. They did not deny service based upon a protected class, they denied service based upon the content they were asked to produce. By your twisted logic that 'ideas' translate into protected classes, discrimination against gays would have happened if a non-homosexual had requested the same cake. How does that work? Since when can you be discriminated against when they didn't actually discriminate against you? How do you discriminate against a homosexual when the person is heterosexual. CONTENT is never PROTECTED CLASS and you can only actually discriminate against people, not their ideas. The people were not discriminated against. They could have bought a cake and were not denied a sake due to their orientation.
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
Um... no, that is not my position at all. Way to fail again. Supporting Freedom of speech is not the same thing as anti-gay marriage... And prioritizing political beliefs based upon government thought police and cultural popularity is also a scary thing to demand. And forcing people to churn out propaganda for worthy causes can quickly turn into government forced propaganda of unworthy causes...
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
How is a picture of Eric and Ernie a political slogan?
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. ...
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
Nice moving of the goalposts, there.
IIRC the article in the OP also made reference to a political,campaign group and its slogan (a flag or symbol and the slogan in text were o n the cake too IIRC).
So,it,was not,just, "Eric and Ernie".
As for gay marriage itself. My view (as an atheist libertarian) is that it should exist, but,churches Reverend s etc should not be forced into conducting them and providing a venue if they feel it violates their religious beliefs. Each church should be allowed to choose for itself whether they wish to conduct and provide a venue for gay marriage.
Gay couple have the right to get married, but not the right to get married in a particular church if that church is against it. They should find another church which is willing, or have a secular marriage.
Otherwise you're cherry picking rights by dictating that one particular group's rights supersede those of another group's.
The last thing I want to see is a society where people are compelled through force of law to hold to a politically correct progressive doctrine (even if I personally dislike their religious views and beliefs, like I do with Islam), for that leads to thought policing,which is anathema to liberty.
Orlanth wrote:I dont see which of your arguments are more ridiculous, that the politicised Equalities quangos are impartial
The EHRC is not politicised, it is accountable to Parliament, not the government of the day. It has legal and enforcement powers and is world renowned in the field of Human Rights. You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
all the articles are either 'questionable' or entirely 'right wing press'.
So who have you quoted here other than the Mail, the Spectator and some Christian blogs?
So you are going to the head in sand approach. Handwave all arguments away are hysterical, even if videos by the BBC.
No I take the approach that you are using terms that have no place in any Statute in the history of the United Kingdom, so are arguing from a point of ignorance about the laws being discussed.
Also just because the Guardian refuses to cover these sort of stories doesn't mean they have no validity or do not occur.
I am well aware that the Guardian does not cover all stories, neither does any other paper, but you see I haven't made any assertions based on the content of news articles, I have provided the specific Acts of Parliament that cover this. see the difference?
Indeed, however the bakers refused a specific service, they would have refused that sefvice to anyone.
Also there is no evidence that the bakers would refuse regular service to anyone, we have evidence at least they serve gays in their bakery because they took the order before realising that the content of the order violated their ethos.
So far the quoted law has been complied with.
If that is the defence you would go with then good luck to you, but when you provide the service of icing cakes, its kind of difficult to say you didn't refuse service when you refused to ice a cake.
I havent quoted Melanie Phillips of Peter Hitchens, I gave links to actual events, and only some were covered in Mail or Telegraph. Besides what is inherently wrong with quoting from the Telegraph.
Links to events where Britain was actively de-anglicanised as a political tool by Labour? Must have missed them, could you point them out.
Nothing is wrong with quoting an article, an editorial is not an article, it is an opinion piece.
Peter Tachell like a number of lobbyists can wield indirect influence. That is what lobbying is for. Whwen Camerion made his commentary that the Uk was a Christian country Tatchell and many others joined the petition against the statement.
besides where did I imply Tatchell was in government position, clearly you are confused..
How much has Tatchell contributed to the main two parties financially?
You claimed that Tatchell had more power than the Church over policy, this is utter nonsense.
Your reading comprehension failed. I never implied Gay Pride was an anti-christian event.
You claimed that if a Christian event was homophobic it would be shut down, that is debatable, but if Gay Pride was not pro-gay, but rather anti-Christian it would suffer the same fate.
I collected the leaflets out of interest as to what might be preached.
Leaflets? As in more than one? Why was that necessary, surely you would know the content from the first one?
Every weekend Al Mouhajiroun was at the venue they placed their stall in the same place, right in the middle of the through traffic, the council have every opportunity to stop that.
So they could well have been subject to the same questioning your group was without your knowledge the first time they turned up.
Third why do you expect me or anyone else not to be concerned, I am not your peon. If I see the interest to collect flyers handed out by Islamic fundamentalists to see their content what is it to you. It is of interest to any open minded man to see what is going on in the world. and the comparison of activities is valid and how different groups are treated
You are indeed allowed to act in any way you see fit within the law, I just figure your time would be better spent not following round leaflets. But if that is what makes you happy then it is not my place to judge.
Besides why would I complain, what good would it do.
The police actively encourage people to report cases of extremism.
What naturally privileged position? You must be insane.
White, straight, male. All three are naturally privileged positions, I wasn't even aware that could be disputed it is that blindingly obvious.
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Actually it is hate speech, discrimination is where social participation is denied to someone.
Clearly you lack and elementary logical understanding of the point of mounting a comparison.
To quote a previous post of yours, if you cant argue respectfully get off the thread.
Race, after all sectarianism its just a word.
Sectarianism occurs when there is a violent racial divide, often using religion as an excuse. However its not an acrtuial relgious issue, but a racial one. This is why you get sectarianism in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, but in most other places where you have catholics and protestants living together you don't.
The race issue is compounded by the polarisation which prevents intermarriage.
In the case of Glasgow the two main factions of 'catholic and protestant', are more closely defined by their football team than by any church. the main divide in that city is Rangers vs Celtic, and it can get VERY nasty, the religion is just a backstory, few go to any form of church, and fewer yet practice what those religions say.
A no true Scotsman that is about Scotsmen, fair play. Alas, it doesn't change the fact that the Catholics and Protestants in NI get to have religious events.
Besides the CPS determines charges not convictions
The CPS decide what goes to court based upon two tests, whether there exists enough evidence and whether there exists a public interest in the conviction. A lack of evidence means no case, the police understand this so they like to collect evidence, this is sometimes best done by keeping persons of interest under surveillance.
I will end up with this one:
In my home town a street preacher was set upon by four Islamic teenagers because they didnt like his message. The police intervened before the violence got too bad (they had hit him) and arrested the preacher for disturbing the peace, the teenagers went on their way.
Sometimes law enforcement finds the easy way out, not the just way out.
No it isnt, its a freely held opinion. Acting against gay marriage is dicriminatory, you can even a draw a line after speaking out against it. however
Being anti-gay marriage is not a crime though, we don't have thought police yet, but we aren't far off in some ways.
So with your outlandish dogmas above you come to this twaddle:
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
and its just not true, if anyone refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake they are non-participating in the gay marriage arguement. They are refraining from creating slogans in support of gay marriaige. It doesnt even allow room to assume a vocalisation of anti-gay marriage sentiments, only a refusal to endorse.
What you are trying to do is make pro-gay marriage sentiments mandatory, on pain of state sponsored litigation. That is pretty much thought policing.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
If the bakery is prosecuted it is because the local Equality quango is heavily dogmatised, this should not be a surprise to anyone.
There's half a clue in why the bakeries being slammed and it's the phrase "refunded the customers money", weather the person went into the store to pick a fight or not is irrelevant.
If it was the companies "strong belief" then the order should have been refused at the counter in any number of ways without being discriminative or offensive.
I'm not entirely sure why it needed to be mailed to the whole company for a decision to be made on weather to produce the goods, I'm pretty sure they made that decision at the point of sale.
Whilst it's being blown out of all proportions and hardly requires court time or news coverage I'd say the customer, because he actually was a customer, has a pretty solid case.
Orlanth wrote: What you are trying to do is make pro-gay marriage sentiments mandatory, on pain of state sponsored litigation. That is pretty much thought policing.
This is not true at all. Selling a product with a particular message does not mean endorsing that message.
The EHRC is not politicised, it is accountable to Parliament, not the government of the day. It has legal and enforcement powers and is world renowned in the field of Human Rights. You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
Well that proves the spin is working.
First it take two terms of government to get the cronies of a previous government out of place. this os normal, in Westminster is is common to replace the top tier of the civil service and to appoint a few key members elsewhere. Blair took it to a whole new level, Blair systemically cleared out the civil service in his second term. and almost entirely replaced the leadership of key external bodies.
The EHRC was set up in 2006 absorbing three other bodies, mostly this was in order to fill fresh (read party affiliated) leadership in an ostensibly independent body, and to replace anyone not Labour affiliated fromm the prior bodies Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Disability Rights Commission.
You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
No I take the approach that you are using terms that have no place in any Statute in the history of the United Kingdom, so are arguing from a point of ignorance about the laws being discussed.
And here I was thinking we were posting on Dakka, not writing legal suppositions in the Inns of Court.
I am well aware that the Guardian does not cover all stories, neither does any other paper, but you see I haven't made any assertions based on the content of news articles, I have provided the specific Acts of Parliament that cover this. see the difference?.
You took a line out of context from the EHRC website, you didn't actually quote the law. There is a difference.
Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief.
In the case at hand they didnt rerfuse goods or services because of the clients beliefs in gay marriage. This can be proven because the bakers took money to bake cakes.
What they did not do is bake a seopcific cake. There is no evidence to suggest they would have baked the same cake for anyone else, so nobody was discriminated against.
Lets look at the real law
Equality Act 2010 29.1
"A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service."
a Christian baker cannot deny the service of baking a cake due to rthe homosexuality of the client. However the word service is clarified below:
Equality Act 2010 31.2
A reference to the provision of a service includes a reference to the provision of goods or facilities.
So in general the refusal of a service would vbe in breach of the Equality Act is goods were not provided. However there is no evidence to sugrst that the gays could not have had a ckae from the bakery, indeed evidence suggests they could because monies were exchanged. If the bakers offered a different cake (which apparently they did because they contacted the client offered money and a face to face explanation. The provisions of the Equality Act would be adhered to in full because goods were offered.
However also look at this
Equality Act 2010 29.6
A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation.
As rel'gion is also a protected lass under the same legislation the Christians were discriminated against when they werre forced to participate in activities against thier eithos. This is covered here in the act under Indirect Discrimnination
Equality Act 2010 19.1
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
Person a the client demands person B perform a practice in violation of their protected (relgious) ethos. Produce pro-gay slogans.
If that is the defence you would go with then good luck to you, but when you provide the service of icing cakes, its kind of difficult to say you didn't refuse service when you refused to ice a cake.
The bakers refused to ice a cake with a specific slogan, as they acepted money it is provable (though as the defence they need not prove anything) that they are prepared to ice cakes for gay people.
So they could well have been subject to the same questioning your group was without your knowledge the first time they turned up.
Nope because the church group was told that if it strayed from the cordoned area it would be shut down. The jihadists set up stall in the middle of the walkspeace week after week and were never shut down.
You are indeed allowed to act in any way you see fit within the law, I just figure your time would be better spent not following round leaflets. But if that is what makes you happy then it is not my place to judge.
Well you do judge, especially when you get it in your head I fo0llowec around leaflets. As I stated the venue was the entrace to a shopping centre, I like many others collected leaflets while out doing shopping. I didnt monitor the jihadists, I just regularly saw them when going shopping on Saturday mornings. It did help that I lived 200 yards away in the town centre.
White, straight, male. All three are naturally privileged positions, I wasn't even aware that could be disputed it is that blindingly obvious.
Where do you get the idea I am white?
Or did you just assume this.
If so why?
Also females are shortlisted for council housing and can apply for vacancies closed to males, including women only shortlists for public positions..
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Actually it is hate speech, discrimination is where social participation is denied to someone.
I will accept that, except that I cant see Jews being socially included by jihadists for any vacancy others than punchbag.
So its hate speech and discrimnination.
A no true Scotsman that is about Scotsmen, fair play. Alas, it doesn't change the fact that the Catholics and Protestants in NI get to have religious events.
And the religious events are the least sectarian part. The Orance order marches may include lots of nominal protestants, but the content isnt Protestant Christianity and the relfgious content is minimal. the race hate content however is evident.
dæl wrote: The CPS decide what goes to court based upon two tests, whether there exists enough evidence and whether there exists a public interest in the conviction. A lack of evidence means no case, the police understand this so they like to collect evidence, this is sometimes best done by keeping persons of interest under surveillance.
Wel;l in the cae of a Chritian preachers listed 'surveillance' lasted until the preacher was confrmed to be speaking, then action was taken.
In the case of the jihadists the police can be seen standing around doping 'surveillance' long after they had evidence to arrest anyone else.
So the EHRC should be talking to the police about their heavy handed treatment of Christians. However for some reason this is one bit of equality watchdogging that is consistently overlooked.
Basically the government can put a gun to your head and basically say 'you must make propaganda for whatever cause a paying customer wants.'
And this is why people left Europe and made a country founded on freedom of speech, because that type of behavior is a slippery slope to some really terrible thought police.
If even the Guardian says the EHRC is run in a "very New Labour, Blairite way" are we surprised its actually Blairite.
So you cite a "libertarian" website, edited by a guy from the Spectator that seemingly misquotes people from the Guardian.
New Labour isnt marxist.
That is a fact I am acutely aware of, the abandoning of Clause 4 was the death knell of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future.
You took a line out of context from the EHRC website
Please explain how the context on the page changed the content of the quoted line.
you didn't actually quote the law
No, I told you the relevant law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and thus contained in it Article 14 of the ECHR. I didn't use the Equality Act 2006, or the Equality Act 2010 because I haven't had to study those laws so don't have the relevant knowledge.
The bakers refused to ice a cake with a specific slogan
Did the slogan intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress? If not, then the baker has no right to refuse service on discriminatory grounds.
Each leaflet was diffierent
I bet they are popular at the printers, who must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Where do you get the idea I am white?
I figured from your idiosyncratic ideas about discrimination, that you hadn't had much experience being discriminated against. Are you not white?
Also females are shortlisted for council housing and can apply for vacancies closed to males, including women only shortlists for public positions..
I wonder why that could be? Could it be something to do with lack of equal representation by any chance?
So the EHRC should be talking to the police about their heavy handed treatment of Christians
Among other groups, yes they should if there is a case to answer, failing that send the case to Strasbourg.
No, I told you the relevant law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and thus contained in it Article 14 of the ECHR. I didn't use the Equality Act 2006, or the Equality Act 2010 because I haven't had to study those laws so don't have the relevant knowledge.
The more recent legislation outweighs older legislation, you ought to know that.
I bet they are popular at the printers, who must be laughing all the way to the bank.
What is specifically unusual about jihadists printing flyers, besides they were A4 sheets and not professionally done. Also the leaflets were rather restricted, I was stweered away from the jihad flyers towards the conversion flyers, but i pretended not to hear and took one of each one.
I figured from your idiosyncratic ideas about discrimination, that you hadn't had much experience being discriminated against. Are you not white?
My colour is not relevant, though yes I am white..
Besides what would you know about my life.
I was attacked in the street for being Christian, though this was by a local moslem with severe mental health issues. I don't blame Islam per se for him.
I was with as church member half an hour before she was stabbed to death because refused to give up her faith.
However oddly enough.
I have gay friends, and when they were targeted by homophobes I was targeted also because I was in their company and the homophobes assumed therefore I was also gay.
i have been mistaken for a Jew based on my looks, and experienced small amounts of anti-Semitism from time to time. This has occurred twice that I recognise.
I wonder why that could be? Could it be something to do with lack of equal representation by any chance?
No women faxce no discrimination in housing, only privileged status. The reasons are fair sounding, women are more vulnerable when homeless than men. But the privileged status nevertheless also extends to temporary housing provision.
More problematically ethjic minorities are sometimes given housing preference. This is not their fault, however as certain ethnic groups tend to vote for certain parties as a whole if a new housing development in a ward is erthnically tailored then it can effect voting patterns in a ward and shift it, normally to Labour or Liberal Democrat.
The housing zone in which I live is a Tory ward, a large housing unit was built both social and part owned housing, and this was to be Asians only. Thankfully this was leaked and the council was forced to backtrack and apply equal opportunities.
It is important not to blame Asians for this, offered a house by the council and uyou take it yes. It is not their fault or to their discredit if dodgy councils want to ethnically tailor estates to change the voting demographic, nor are social housing tenants expected to ethnically graph their own neighbourhoods.
As a general rule if you tailor a development for blacks you get a shift to Labour, for Asians you get LD or Labour dependent on the area. This is evidence based on large scale voting habits and does not take into account individuals.just statistical averages.
There are varied ways to smokescreen this discriminatory action such as using BME Housing Initiatives, 'specialist providers' etc.
Among other groups, yes they should if there is a case to answer, failing that send the case to Strasbourg.
Christian groups find it hard to get state funding to fight a case in the European court, though some have tried. However that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with legal aid. Christians are far from the only groups who get short changed on legal protection. I don't think I can blame the EHRC for this though.
Orlanth wrote: Well it obviously did cause distress to the bakers, or they would have iced the cake with it..
I think you're confusing distress with the attitude held by a lot of conservative Christians that they're entitled to a world in which they never have to be aware of anything that violates their beliefs. And I find it difficult to believe that the cake caused any significant distress given the fact that they initially accepted the job and only later decided that it was against their religion. If this was truly an offensive message then why didn't they immediately reject it like they might have rejected a racist cake ordered by a KKK group, or a "CHRISTIANS SUCK!" cake?
Did the slogan intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress? If not, then the baker has no right to refuse service on discriminatory grounds.
Well it obviously did cause distress to the bakers, or they would have iced the cake with it..
The key word is intentionally, the motivation is as important as the act.
I was attacked in the street for being Christian, though this was by a local moslem with severe mental health issues. I don't blame Islam per se for him.
I was with as church member half an hour before she was stabbed to death because refused to give up her faith.
However oddly enough.
I have gay friends, and when they were targeted by homophobes I was targeted also because I was in their company and the homophobes assumed therefore I was also gay.
i have been mistaken for a Jew based on my looks, and experienced small amounts of anti-Semitism from time to time. This has occurred twice that I recognise.
These are, without doubt, horrific instances of hate crimes. However systemic discrimination is different, it is not specific instances, it is a constant battle.
No women faxce no discrimination in housing, only privileged status. The reasons are fair sounding, women are more vulnerable when homeless than men. But the privileged status nevertheless also extends to temporary housing provision.
I agree with this, and I was homeless and received what was essentially no support. Vulnerable groups should be given more support than less vulnerable ones.
As a general rule if you tailor a development for blacks you get a shift to Labour, for Asians you get LD or Labour dependent on the area. This is evidence based on large scale voting habits and does not take into account individuals.just statistical averages.
I would be very interested in seeing a psephological study on this. Generally a change in voting habits is down to perceived levels of competence in office.
Christian groups find it hard to get state funding to fight a case in the European court, though some have tried. However that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with legal aid. Christians are far from the only groups who get short changed on legal protection. I don't think I can blame the EHRC for this though.
Human Rights lawyers are generally far more receptive to doing work pro bono than other lawyers, especially in cases that would be high profile or have a large public interest. Of course the case does have to have some merit, unlike the famous B&B case, or if the bakery in this case claimed discrimination.
The key word is intentionally, the motivation is as important as the act.
Were this the case most street preachers would be pretty much inviolable. Even the ones saying homosexuality is a sin, loudly, in their eyes they are doing gays a favour by warning them of God's wrath. Motivation is not hate speech, however hate speech is what it is classed as a lot of the time. I find the hate speech attachment unfair as it clearly does imply motivation, however the law as stands lists some speech as legally considered hateful even if no actual hate is intended.
We do have to balance this against a loophole of attempts to cause genuine harassment and strife while vacuously claiming to 'love the sinner but hate the sin'. The legislation needs a tweak, not throwing out.
These are, without doubt, horrific instances of hate crimes. However systemic discrimination is different, it is not specific instances, it is a constant battle.
I do not claim to be hard done by, I have only once been in fear of my life and that was a regular mugging by youths with knives, and that was not a hate crime IMHO, though the attackers were of a different ethnicity it was incidental.
No women face no discrimination in housing, only privileged status. The reasons are fair sounding, women are more vulnerable when homeless than men. But the privileged status nevertheless also extends to temporary housing provision.
I agree with this, and I was homeless and received what was essentially no support. Vulnerable groups should be given more support than less vulnerable ones.
I mentioned this to prove that white males are not in the case of housing a privileged status. Personally in most cases female priority for housing makes sense, it makes less sense when applied as a dogma. In many cases if a man has a home brings in a female partner and there is a bust up and police are called , the male has to leave the house and surrender the keys, even if it is his house. Tenancies have changed this way, and merit doesn't come into it. This plus the known dodge of getting pregnant to leap onto the housing queue causes some resentment.
When I was a homeless worker I saw both of these a lot.
I would be very interested in seeing a psephological study on this. Generally a change in voting habits is down to perceived levels of competence in office.
As the general popular concensus, backed with a fair degree of truth is that 'they are all the same' the public tends to vote in class or racial blocks. These are of course only generalisations but there are detectable patterns not only between voting and class but also voting and race. So it stands to reason that a housing policy shift to favour one group or another can alter voting demographics.
This is an old trick, one of two weapons governments use to manipulate elections legally. The other main trick are boundary changes.
A story on boundary changes, as sometimes they dont work out as intended:
I knew someone who was an elected local/ later district councilor in the west country. She was a pensioner who decided to run for local government to 'get things done' she was notably competent, gained popular support and was well liked. Mainly because she took the unglamorous portfolios like healthcare, refuse and senior citizens avoided the gravy train and worked very long hours. She had a rep as the person to approach if you wanted things done for anyone except big business, they had their own contacts.
This showed a lot of people up, some got very viscous, however worse it didnt give the impression that the then central government wanted to foster was the character of an opposition councilor and she was forced into by-elections due to frequent boundary changes , IIRC seven of them in her ten years as a councilor, these elections she had to fight in addition to the regularly appointed ones, and some were as little as nine months apart.
She had the last laugh though, on two occasions her ward was stripped of middle class housing estates and replaced with sink estates, and she still polled over 50% of votes cast a feast by any stretch. Both middle classes and poor voted for her because she got things done. The boundary changes actually helped other members of the same party as it solidified other wards by removing sink estates from their wards. All in all the multiple attempts to remove her via boundary changes only improved her rep and fueled yet more boundary changes. Her ward was considered a safe seat due to the impressive vote totals, and was eagerly gobbled up as safe when she had to retire due to declining health. but her party replacement quickly found that it was held on personality and reputation alone, not demographics, and the ward reverted to its demographic norms immediately.
Its nice to know there are honest politicians about, they never rise far, but come from across the political spectrum and if recognised for what they are by their electorate can gain cross demographic support.
[Human Rights lawyers are generally far more receptive to doing work pro bono than other lawyers, especially in cases that would be high profile or have a large public interest. Of course the case does have to have some merit, unlike the famous B&B case, or if the bakery in this case claimed discrimination.
You seem you know this aside of the legislation.
The B&B case was out and out wrong, and the bakery has no case to claim discrimination, in that even if they have a technical case (dubious) they would gain no sympathy. Cross wearing staff members have a good case if other symbology was permitted.
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
So now you're magically deciding intent behind speech and therefor with your amazing powers of diviniation deciding what is good speech and what is bad speech? Orwell would be proud (or hauling ass out of there).
Do you not see that you just completely eliminated the right of free speech?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If it has Bert and Ernie with the slogan that was refused and a straight person cuts it is that intolerance because of the message displayed?
(above said only in jest)
In the UK apparently, disparaging a popular message of viewpoint is a hate crime and discrimination. The simple act of defacing a 'pro-gay marriage' cake would be criminal discrimination against all gay people everywhere.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage. ***agreed.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage. ***Agreed. Thinking otherwise is not logical.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory. ***Acting anti gay marriage is discriminatory. Belief requires the thought police.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people. ***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion. He is not discriminating against gay people. Forced labor is slavery.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it. ***Yes it is. Its discriminatory against free speech. Again he's not discriminating against gay people. He's discriminating against being forced to do something against his religion. Even the Army can't make you do that.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion. He is not discriminating against gay people. Forced labor is slavery.
When will you guys get this into your head: Europe is not the US, you don't get special exemptions from laws that you don't like just because you claim to have an invisible friend over here. Also, we don't have none of that "corporation are people" crap over here as well, so if one particular artisan didn't feel like decorating that cake the company could pass the work on to another employee to do the job, what the company can't do is refuse the job and quote "religious reasons" as a motive for refusing it. Its against the law, end of.
Well. they can but it usually involves gunsto the base of people's skulls.
The issue is popular opinion in the UK wants simply the 'belief' of not support gay marriage to be criminalized, and so that would make basically a majority of the religions in the UK discriminatory by their mere existence.
But the UK apparently doesn't have freedom of speech or religion, so if they want to police people's thoughts and begin exterminating the unpopular beliefs at government direction, that is their government apparently. But we see how that quickly turns into 'now you must support maintaining our countries culture' like in France which is turning a 'pro-France' position into an 'anti-foreigners who don't assimilate' position. So I am wary of how someone can say 'pro-stance' is not at all going to invalidate 'anti-stance' because while it starts off that way, it ends up poorly, and this is a prime example as forcing people to promote 'pro-gay marriage' against their beliefs with the argument of 'it is a position which harms no one so you are not allowed to disagree with it! Get to work or go to jail'
How would this case be different if they had asked for a 'pro-choice' cake and the christian baker was 'pro-life'... would it be discrimination? Who would it be discriminating against except an 'ideal'. Since when were political positions or 'thought' a protected class? Scary stuff to begin criminalizing beliefs or political positions.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion. He is not discriminating against gay people. Forced labor is slavery.
When will you guys get this into your head: Europe is not the US, you don't get special exemptions from laws that you don't like just because you claim to have an invisible friend over here. Also, we don't have none of that "corporation are people" crap over here as well, so if one particular artisan didn't feel like decorating that cake the company could pass the work on to another employee to do the job, what the company can't do is refuse the job and quote "religious reasons" as a motive for refusing it. Its against the law, end of.
What about people who have objections which are non-religious in nature? Thought police is thought police regardless of people's reason for believing something. Under what circumstances can they 'refuse a job'? And what laws show that refusal of jobs is never permitted... that sounds super scary to me.
And you seem to pretend that there is no freedom of religion in the UK. There very much is and there are protections so people can practice theer religion. What you describe is forced slavery at government enforcement to be forced to allow people to force their beliefs on others at gunpoint. That doesn't seem to be the law.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the UK includes:
the freedom to change religion or belief;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief publicly or privately, alone or with others;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance; and
the right to have no religion (e.g. to be atheist or agnostic) or to have non-religious beliefs protected (e.g. philosophical beliefs such as pacifism or veganism).
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion. He is not discriminating against gay people. Forced labor is slavery.
When will you guys get this into your head: Europe is not the US, you don't get special exemptions from laws that you don't like just because you claim to have an invisible friend over here. Also, we don't have none of that "corporation are people" crap over here as well, so if one particular artisan didn't feel like decorating that cake the company could pass the work on to another employee to do the job, what the company can't do is refuse the job and quote "religious reasons" as a motive for refusing it. Its against the law, end of.
Yes Europe is not liike the US. We have freedom of speech (except California of course).
This has nothing to do with my "invisible friend" it has to do with freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Only Goodthought is Permitted! Badthoughts Ist Verbotten!
What about people who have objections which are non-religious in nature? Thought police is thought police regardless of people's reason for believing something. Under what circumstances can they 'refuse a job'? And what laws show that refusal of jobs is never permitted... that sounds super scary to me.
You've already had several people telling you what are the reasons that people can or cannot use to refuse to render a commercial service. "Because my religion doesn't condone it" isn't one of them.
And you seem to pretend that there is no freedom of religion in the UK. There very much is and there are protections so people can practice theer religion. What you describe is forced slavery at government enforcement to be forced to allow people to force their beliefs on others at gunpoint. That doesn't seem to be the law.
A company isn't a person. A commercial company doesn't have religious rights. That particular brand of fiction only exists in the US.
Also, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion, if the roles had been reversed and a religious person wanted to bake a cake stating that "Jesus is Great", then he couldn't be refused by an atheist baker company either.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in the UK includes:
the freedom to change religion or belief;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief publicly or privately, alone or with others;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance; and
the right to have no religion (e.g. to be atheist or agnostic) or to have non-religious beliefs protected (e.g. philosophical beliefs such as pacifism or veganism).
Companies are not people over here. They don't have the same rights as individuals.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion. He is not discriminating against gay people. Forced labor is slavery.
When will you guys get this into your head: Europe is not the US, you don't get special exemptions from laws that you don't like just because you claim to have an invisible friend over here. Also, we don't have none of that "corporation are people" crap over here as well, so if one particular artisan didn't feel like decorating that cake the company could pass the work on to another employee to do the job, what the company can't do is refuse the job and quote "religious reasons" as a motive for refusing it. Its against the law, end of.
Yes Europe is not liike the US. We have freedom of speech (except California of course).
This has nothing to do with my "invisible friend" it has to do with freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Only Goodthought is Permitted! Badthoughts Ist Verbotten!
No, what you have isn't freedom of speech, what you have over there is the right to invoke special dispensation from the law when you have the correct invisible friend.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
***NO he is refusing to be forced to work contrary to his religion.
No he/she isn't.
If they were being forcibly married to a same gender person then that would be against contrary to their religion.
If they were being forced to recite a prayer to a different deity or eat a forbidden food then that would be against their religion.
Asking them to act towards other people in the same way that they are expected to treat everyone is not against their religion anymore so than requiring them to pay taxes or any of the other thousands of things that people do everyday.
Then the company could pass the work along to another employee.
And if there is no other employee because there is only a single cake decorator int he small company? or if the business is a single employee?
And you are way too hung up on your hate of religion... Not all beliefs are held due to religion, people can have secular beliefs which disagree with political positions... what then?
Then the company could pass the work along to another employee.
And if there is no other employee because there is only a single cake decorator int he small company? or if the business is a single employee?
This isn't the case, this is a company that is constituted by a chain of least 6 stores and that wasn't the reason given by the company itself to refuse the work, so they even have that against them.
And you are way too hung up on your hate of religion... Not all beliefs are held due to religion, people can have secular beliefs which disagree with political positions... what then?
If those "political positions" as you call them are protected by the law, then those same secular beliefs cannot be used as a reason to refuse service.
This isn't an attack on religion, its the exact opposite. The same laws that protect gays from being discriminated against also protect religious people from being discriminated against because of their beliefs and you would be the first one screaming if the roles had been reversed and this was a religious person that didn't get to have the cake that they wanted (and I would also be right there with you)! Everyone should get cake, that alone should be a basic human right!
If those "political positions" as you call them are protected by the law, then those same secular beliefs cannot be used as a reason to refuse service.
This isn't an attack on religion, its the exact opposite. The same laws that protect gays from being discriminated against also protect religious people from being discriminated against because of their beliefs and you would be the first one screaming if the roles had been reversed and this was a religious person that didn't get to have the cake that they wanted (and I would also be right there with you)! Everyone should get cake, that alone should be a basic human right!
Political positions cannot be 'protected by law' that is insane. Only people's protected classes. There is a huge difference even if you wish not to see one and basically artificially prop up political positions over others by claiming they are 'protected political positions'.
What if this was a Bakery who had a baker who was strong in her outspoken support of woman's right to choose and someone asked for a cake which said 'Abortion stops a beating heart'. I assume that the person would be unable to refuse service? Or is pro-life not a popular opinion by you, and can totally be 'discriminated' against? This is what happens when you begin policing and protecting/criminalizing beliefs and political positions.
And don't assume you know what I want or that you just are trying to lump anyone who believes in free speech as a bible-thumper. I would support the right of anyone to deny any cake based upon content because content is not protected. If someone didn't want to make a christian cake because they disagreed with Christianity or simply didn't want to support religious events, that should be their right. Non-participation should be valid when it comes to creating custom content which is promoting ideas. Refusing to sell a cake to Christians is not the same as refusing to make a cake with a religious message you may not agree with. It works both ways, freedom of speech and freedom to not participate in forced speech.
And before peregrine's broken record comes in... just because one person thinks 'creating a cake with a message is not promoting that message' that is not at all supported by law or what people actually believe. So if you feel the government should be allowed to force creation of propaganda against people's conscience because they should divest themselves of the message, you are not living in the real world.
Asking them to act towards other people in the same way that they are expected to treat everyone is not against their religion anymore so than requiring them to pay taxes or any of the other thousands of things that people do everyday.
But that goes against the case at issue. "He" was acting in accord with his treatment of other clients. He was not refusing to make a cake for them. He was refusing to make a cake with a message he disagreed with. In effect he was refusing the contract, not the party.
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
So now you're magically deciding intent behind speech and therefor with your amazing powers of diviniation deciding what is good speech and what is bad speech? Orwell would be proud (or hauling ass out of there).
Do you not see that you just completely eliminated the right of free speech?
We're European. We don't value freedom of speech like you Yanks do, sadly.
Refusing to make a cake with a gay slogan does not equate to refusing to serve a gay person. If he only refused to make that specific cake, and told the guy to pick something else or go somewhere else, he SHOULD be fine and we shouldn't even be having this discussion. If he refused the guy on the grounds, "sorry, I won't make a cake for you because it is clear you are homosexual", then it's inappropriate. The two are mutually exclusive. One is acceptable, one is not. Anyway, that's the last I'm adding. My opinion stands based on which response was the one given. One is an act of hate, one is an act of religious choice and should be protected by law. While I believe most things in the world are pretty grey areas, this is one of those rare instances I see as black and white: he either committed a hate crime or observed his religious beliefs, depending fully on whether he refused to make that specific cake or refused to serve the man.
And if you can't see the difference between a refused gay-cake and a refused gay-man, well, then there's really no helping you, and you should vacation for a week in a shark tank. When they nip, they're only being playful.
timetowaste85 wrote: Refusing to make a cake with a gay slogan does not equate to refusing to serve a gay person. If he only refused to make that specific cake, and told the guy to pick something else or go somewhere else, he SHOULD be fine and we shouldn't even be having this discussion. If he refused the guy on the grounds, "sorry, I won't make a cake for you because it is clear you are homosexual", then it's inappropriate. The two are mutually exclusive.
Agreed, and a succinct summation of my argument. Further you may disagree with both, and your options are to boycott the store, letter write (boys and girls before there was facebooks there was something called "paper"), etc etc. Social pressure is an amazing thing, but unless its illegal don't throw someone in jail for an opinion, however stupid it may be.
"He" was acting in accord with his treatment of other clients.
He was not refusing to make a cake for them. He was refusing to make a cake with a message he disagreed with.
Whether or not he agrees with the message is irrelevant. You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc
You have to treat them all the same
In effect he was refusing the contract, not the party.
THATS the difference.
Except, as you keep dancing around, the contract, blessed and special thing that it is, wasn't being refused on any valid grounds -- ie we we don't print any messages or make cakes or whatever etc etc -- but was being terminated entirely due to prejudice.
It's no different from someone refusing to sell someone a Bar Mitzvah cake ( or similar tasty product) not due to anti semitism but because you don't do business with anyone called Cohen.
By your way of thinking it's not an issue that one has sit in certain seats or stand on the bus if white folks come on board as-- hey -- you're on the bus !
Frazzled wrote: Agreed, and a succinct summation of my argument. Further you may disagree with both, and your options are to boycott the store, letter write (boys and girls before there was facebooks there was something called "paper"), etc etc. Social pressure is an amazing thing, but unless its illegal don't throw someone in jail for an opinion, however stupid it may be.
I hope there is still paper. I don't want to wipe my with a laptop
Whether or not he agrees with the message is irrelevant. You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc
And he didn't. Unless you have other information, it was said that the bakery refused to make the cake with the message on it, not serve the customer.
Do you think ministers should be forced to marry a couple if he doesn't want to? Under your definition, he is committing a crime if he doesn't because he's discriminating.
d-usa wrote: If he refused to serve the cake with the message, even though he makes lots of cakes with lots of messages, then he refused to serve he customer.
Decorating the cake is part of the service, but people still somehow try to separate the two.
But every person is a protected class, so by your statement, he cann;t refuse to make any message, ever, evern if the message itself would violate your laws. Thats nonsensical.
Again following this train of thought, should a minister have to marry people he doesn't want to? Should a baker have to make cakes for the New Black Panthers? How about the KKK?
Whether or not he agrees with the message is irrelevant. You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc
You have to treat them all the same
You miss the point again.
You don't actually get to decide what services you'll offer to different people depending upon their religion, sexual orientation, skin colour etc
This is correct, so the person cannot be refused if they are protected. I dint like how the law gives protected people a special privilege, but we are talking the law not morality. I would prefer if all persons had the same rights but there we are.
However no person was refused, and we have evidence of this because the bakery took the order for a custom cake before realising what the brief required.
The cake is what was refused.
You assume the cake was refused because the person was refused, there is no excuse to claim this or evidence to support it. logically if anyone including a Christian doing a gay friend a favour came and ordered the cake it would likely be refused on the same grounds. Frankly it looks to me that all customers were treated equally, everyone can have a cake if they pay for it, but nobody can have a specific cake that violates the bakery staffs ethos.
If every customer is treated equally then nobody is being discriminated against.
Now reds8n you have made your 'point' a number of times, and bee refuted each time. Can you explain to me that you understand the diffierence between a client and a product.
run though these mental exercises.
Which of these are discriminatory:
Refusal of client:
1. A protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he is of his status.
2. A protected client walks into a shop and he is refused service because its time for prayers and the shop will be shutting for half an hour.
Refusal of product
1. A protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he asks for a product that the shopkeeper is unwilling to sell to anyone.
2. A friend walking into the shop and is sold items not normally on sale as a private deal, a protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he is not a personal friend.
3. A friend walking into the shop and is sold items not normally on sale as a private deal, a non-protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he is not a personal friend.
4. A protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he asks for a product being removed from sale, just after a non protected client managed to buy a similar item before it was removed from the shelves.
5. A protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he asks for a custom item that the shop staff are unwilling to manufacture for ethical reasons.
6. A non-protected client walks into a shop and is refused service because he asks for a custom item that the shop staff are unwilling to manufacture for ethical reasons.
And he didn't. Unless you have other information, it was said that the bakery refused to make the cake with the message on it, not serve the customer.
If they don't make the cake then they have not served the customer.
Do you think ministers should be forced to marry a couple if he doesn't want to?
I'm assuming you're meaning religious official here ?
Generally no I don't think he should be forced to marry a couple he didn't want to, at least with regards to religious practise. So no a priest should not be forced to, for example, marry a same sex couple.
One would caveat that though that if said person was standing in as a state/secular body official (somehow or for some reason) then said person should have to marry the couple/whatever.
Under your definition, he is committing a crime if he doesn't because he's discriminating.
Only if you don't think there are or should be exceptions for religious institutions. Churches fall into this category so I'm more than happy for them to indeed have some different rights -- and of course restrictions. Would be a bit daft to restrict churches to Sunday opening hours or have them be shut on Xmas day for example.
But a bakery or a company or a corporation isn't a religious institution and therefore doesn't have those same benefits and restrictions.
You miss the point again
No I'm not, what I am doing is disagreeing that there is a difference here in terms or practise.
The cake is what was refused.
No this is incorrect.
The cake they could have -- or indeed one would assume any other product the bakery sells. What was refused was the same offer/service they do for other people.
You assume the cake was refused because the person was refused,
No, I know the cake wasn't produced due to an illegal decision made by the company.
ow reds8n you have made your 'point' a number of times, and bee refuted each time
No, I've put forwards my view several times and you and others have "argued" -- see ? I can use quotation marks too ! -- or at least tried to with no satisfactory answer each time whilst continuing to tell me what I'm arguing and then arguing against that even though that's not relevant.
If you don't think there's a difference between refusing a person and refusing to offer a person a service then we'll just have to disagree.
Who knows maybe the law will change ( one way or t'other) at some point.
I don't know.
kheads" does not appear to be in violation.
