Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

You're making the assumption that I personally am against Gay Marriage. Which is wrong, I'm not. Unlike you, I don't think everyone should be coerced by law into holding and endorsing a political viewpoint, because that is totalitarian.

The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

 skyth wrote:


The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

Well, I kind of feel that the bakery owner in this case is probably in a smaller town, yes? and smaller towns tend to be more rural and conservative. If someone comes to him and wants a cake that will probably be advertised as one of his/hers, then it could massively hurt his/her business within that town to the point they either have to move, or shut down. From that point of view, it makes complete sense for him/her to deny that person service. He/she probably supports gay marriage, and would probably make a cake for a couple's wedding with a same sex couple as a topper (as often times, in photos/ads or newspapers that bit is glossed over, so far less likely that some overly conservative person will get "outraged" over this person conducting his business for people.

The difference skyth, between a bakery's work, and yours is that people will recommend either on service, but you merely conduct that service.... That service doesn't have much opportunity for public displays of political statement. As such, you doing taxes for conservatives is not going to hurt your business with liberals, and vice versa. Not recycling your paper products MAY affect your business with Eco-Nazi environmentalists, but not your average walk in client, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The difference skyth, between a bakery's work, and yours is that people will recommend either on service, but you merely conduct that service.... .

Wrong. A number of my new clients come from recommendations from people I've helped out in the past. However, the fastest way to lose clients is to tell people that I won't give them credits for things that I disagree with. My religious beliefs only affect what I do, not what other people do. In my experience, most cakes don't have a made by label on them that is shown off to other people...So I don't see what the issue would be with them making a cake. And if it's a small, rural area then there is likely a limited number of places that you can go to to get a cake made. Letting bigots win is not good for society.

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd prefer a more grownup debate than "So you disagree with my political opinion on gay marriage and sexual morality? BIGOT!"

Not wanting to be accused of being a bigot doesn't mean that everyone has to stop, or that they're being childish if they don't. Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted. I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance". Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But the moment you start trying to prevent other people from having one you become a bigot.

You're making the assumption that I personally am against Gay Marriage. Which is wrong, I'm not. Unlike you, I don't think everyone should be coerced by law into holding and endorsing a political viewpoint, because that is totalitarian.

The point is, if you are against gays that want to get married getting married, you pretty much are a bigot. Has little to do with the legal part. No one is saying that you shouldn't legally be able to hold that opinion, just that that opinion should not be able to affect other people especially when you are a for-profit business open to the public.

If you are a business open to the public, there is the expectation of professionalism. I do taxes, and there's plenty of times when I've encountered people doing things that I disagree with. However, as a professional, I am expected to do my job and complete the tax return in a legal manner taking all deductions that are legal even if I disagree with them.

And that is how you choose to run your business. Others choose to run it in a different way and take the 'downsides' of publicly taking stances on social issues and not promoting political positions they disagree with... and sometimes for them, that increases business, sometimes it will lead to consumer boycotts. At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

And who says your 'opinions cannot effect others'? 'Ideas' are not protected classes. Protected thought is thought police and censorship which neither the laws in the US or UK currently support.

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

Wait, does this company sell Devils Food cake? If it does its soul might already be doomed

No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

Except you can be VERY pro gay marriage, but still refuse to serve someone wanting what amounts to a political statement on a product you design/make... Would this still be a story if someone went into this same person's bakery and said "I want a giant cake with "Vote Pro-Life" on it" and the baker said "No, I won't do that" ??? Would it be an issue if someone wanted a cake that read "ban seatbelt laws" or "get rid of the Education board" ??

It's one thing to do as that proposed AZ law, and deny service to someone because they are gay (or whatever they are that you are against), it's a whole other one to say, "ya know what? You want political slogans on your cakes? Fine, but I won't make them for you. OR, you can buy a blank cake and put the writing on yourself" As a business owner, he is well within his rights to do either, especially if he has one of those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs up. One does indeed make him a bigot/racist, whatever, the other makes him a smart business owner.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's wrong because there are no legitimate arguements against gays that want to getting married and if you are running a public business you serve the public in a professional manner.

Wrong is pretty subjective.

If you're a private business I think it should be more your prerogative than it is.

I'd be willing to bet there are a few gay bakers out there. Give them your business.

Not doing political sayings is one thing. However marriage is not a political thing. It's a human rights thing.

If the bakery doesn't do wedding cakes then fine. A good way of thinking about it is to replace 'gay' with 'black'. Would a business be able to get away with not serving black people?

Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

 skyth wrote:
Not doing political sayings is one thing. However marriage is not a political thing. It's a human rights thing.

If the bakery doesn't do wedding cakes then fine. A good way of thinking about it is to replace 'gay' with 'black'. Would a business be able to get away with not serving black people?

Dude, the issue at hand isn't a Wedding Cake for a gay couple, it was A cake that said "Support Gay Marriage"


So, by your example it would be equivalent to him saying no to a potential customer who wanted him to make them a cake that read "Black Power" or something like that... he'd still serve them, just not with the phrasing/subject matter they wanted.

If you're a baker I'd expect you to bake things. You're perfectly free to oppose gay marriage by voting for whatever suits you best , but, as has been said, there's an expectation of professionalism involved. If one isn't comfortable icing cakes for people one disagrees with, perhaps one should consider a career change?

You as a private citizen have every right to refuse, but as a professional representative of your trade I expect you to do your job. There's a lot of talk about rights, but rights also come with obligations.

nkelsch wrote:
At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

What rights did the company have that were violated by them decorating the cake in the requested way?

nkelsch wrote:

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

No, the argument boils down to 'It feels wrong because its people using lame excuses to discriminate against someone that they don't like. Don't let the bigots win.'

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

Thats discriminating against an idea, not a person. You're basically advocating thought control.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you're a baker I'd expect you to bake things. You're perfectly free to oppose gay marriage by voting for whatever suits you best , but, as has been said, there's an expectation of professionalism involved. If one isn't comfortable icing cakes for people one disagrees with, perhaps one should consider a career change?

You as a private citizen have every right to refuse, but as a professional representative of your trade I expect you to do your job. There's a lot of talk about rights, but rights also come with obligations.

I disagree... rights do not inherently come with obligations... If they did, then a whole lot less people would open there mouths for stupid gak to come out of.


Look at the gakstorm created by companies like Starbucks, Chipotle, and Target in the US taking an public stance on the gun control issue (they really aren't, they just asked people not to bring firearms into their stores)... IF they didn't want to serve people carrying firearms, should they have followed a different career? It's a bit ridiculous isnt it? But, guys like Starbucks, Chipotle, and Target are big enough they can afford that backlash, whereas Mom and Pop bakers simply can't.

In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the Equality Act (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

 Compel wrote:
In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the [urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2=Equality Act[/url] (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

I was using it as a reference mostly, because we've had numerous threads on the issue recently. I get that it doesn't really apply to all situations, but you can see how, a company that is facing backlash for taking a stance of some kind on a current, highly-charged political issue is going to affect them. For large businesses, they often can shrug it off, but for a small guy, like a bakery, it could be their death blow.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Compel wrote:
In the UK at least, "Gun Ownership" isn't listed in the [urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/2=Equality Act[/url] (Linking to the 2010 version now, which is actually a much easier read). So that analogy doesn't work.

I believe this is the most relevant section here.

I was using it as a reference mostly, because we've had numerous threads on the issue recently. I get that it doesn't really apply to all situations, but you can see how, a company that is facing backlash for taking a stance of some kind on a current, highly-charged political issue is going to affect them. For large businesses, they often can shrug it off, but for a small guy, like a bakery, it could be their death blow.

Companies in the EU don't have the same rights as an individual person, your comparison has no relevance to this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Certain behaviours are wrong and are prohibited by law. Namely, discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality."

in the fact pattern cited, none of these occurred. There was no refusal to serve anyone.

They refused to make a cake saying Support Gay Marriage. They said in their explanation that is because they do not support gay marriage. They would have made a cake that supported non-gay marriage. I don't really know how more obvious the discrimination can be.

Thats discriminating against an idea, not a person. You're basically advocating thought control.

No, they can have all the biggoted thoughts that they wan't they just can't act on them. See the difference?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

You do realise that he was making a joke, right? The Michael Jackson reference should have given it away if nothing else...

PhantomViper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah but gay people can choose to be straight at the drop of a flamboyant hat.

Blacks need to be really rich to change that with lots of surgery.

You might want to be careful in saying that, considering that's one of the things argued against them that realllly gets some people sore.

You do realise that he was making a joke, right? The Michael Jackson reference should have given it away if nothing else...

Hard to tell in the off-topic forum.

PhantomViper wrote:

Companies in the EU don't have the same rights as an individual person, your comparison has no relevance to this issue.

If you were a small business owner in the EU, what rights would you no longer have, or which would you have "greater" freedom in?? I mean it does seem very foreign to me that you, as a business owner apparently do NOT have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason... I mean, it could be as stupid as "the guy wasn't wearing a shirt" or as serious as "I don't like asians, so I refuse to serve them"

PhantomViper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
At least in the US, you don't forfeit your rights when you go to work, and in the UK it is similar.

What rights did the company have that were violated by them decorating the cake in the requested way?

nkelsch wrote:

All of the arguments boil down to 'It feels wrong because I like gay marriage, can't we find a way to get them in trouble?'

No, the argument boils down to 'It feels wrong because its people using lame excuses to discriminate against someone that they don't like. Don't let the bigots win.'

Doesn't matter which side wins because either way, the victor will be "bigoted".

I'm breaking my promised silence to say that this thread really sucks. I've lost a lot of respect for many posters on here who can't tell the difference between a cake and a person. I'm pretty sure I learned the difference in high school: you can lick the frosting off a cake without any fuss, but if you lick another person, you get called into the principal's office. Pretty sure there's another difference or two. The cake was refused the patron was not. If he picked out a different cake, HE still would have been served. You guys need to seriously pull your heads out of your asses and figure out the difference between a baked good and a human being. If I need to, I'll make a pie chart to show you the difference. But this thread has become disgusting, any way you slice it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The cake was refused the patron was not. If he picked out a different cake, HE still would have been served.

And if only Mrs. Parks had chosen a different bus seat it would have saved a lot of turmoil in the 60's. That is the argument you are making, no?

Because "I don't want to promote that message, please pick something else" is the same thing as "hey, a white guy wants to sit there. Move it!" Yeah, sure. Good argument. One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons, the other is putting a race of people down.

The key thing here is "religious reason" and the protection of a man asserting his religious beliefs. Or rather the lack thereof, as many of you feel there shouldn't be any protection of religion, but there should be protection of sexuality. Not that arguments matter, as any obstruction to people like you is akin to banging our heads against a brick wall-the opposing arguments have been as dense as a wall, that's for sure.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons

No it isn't. The bakery owner was not asked to be involved in the "lifestyle" in any way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
One is a person not wishing to be involved in a lifestyle he opposes for religious reasons

No it isn't. The bakery owner was not asked to be involved in the "lifestyle" in any way.

No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No but he is being coerced into implicitly condoning it by putting a politicised slogan onto his product, thereby associating his brand with gay marriage.

Only if you make the absurd assumption that "selling a product which contains X" means "personally endorsing X".

And I'm not really feeling any sympathy for the owner over that "association". Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot who should be shunned by society, so the "harm" caused is on the same level as the "harm" of having to tell the whole world that you aren't a KKK member.

When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.