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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Cash Cow attempt

Its a set up for perpetual blackmail.

"Bake a cake with an image of a demon humping Jesus on the cross."
"No"
"You dont serve Satanists, discrimination!!"
Ker-ching.

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Cash Cow attempt

Its a set up for perpetual blackmail.

"Bake a cake with an image of a demon humping Jesus on the cross."
"No"
"You dont serve Satanists, discrimination!!"
Ker-ching.

What about a Christian who wants a cake with an image of Gays burning in hell?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Cash Cow attempt

Its a set up for perpetual blackmail.

"Bake a cake with an image of a demon humping Jesus on the cross."
"No"
"You dont serve Satanists, discrimination!!"
Ker-ching.

Except that would be covered under some other law I would imagine due to it's offensive nature.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

Ker-ching

Crystal-Maze wrote:
The Bed and Breakfast incident sets a clear precedent.

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.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Cash Cow attempt

Its a set up for perpetual blackmail.

"Bake a cake with an image of a demon humping Jesus on the cross."
"No"
"You dont serve Satanists, discrimination!!"
Ker-ching.

Except that would be covered under some other law I would imagine due to it's offensive nature.

Which is subjective.

 Medium of Death wrote:

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?

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

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?

Our totalitarian progressive Overlords.

Crystal-Maze wrote:


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.

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!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Cash Cow attempt

Its a set up for perpetual blackmail.

"Bake a cake with an image of a demon humping Jesus on the cross."
"No"
"You dont serve Satanists, discrimination!!"
Ker-ching.

What about a Christian who wants a cake with an image of Gays burning in hell?

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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

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.

Don't interrupt his suffering:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Don't interrupt his suffering:

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

Also, are you assuming that Orlanth is Christian?

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

Also, are you assuming that Orlanth is Christian?

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.

So you admit it, YOU oppressed a Christian!

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So you admit it, YOU oppressed a Christian!

Guilty as charged. Whaddya gonna do? Sue me?

 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.

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.

No, give you a civil service award.

Edit: Directed to Shadow.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

Murica!

Edited by RiTides

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, give you a civil service award.

Edit: Directed to Shadow.

Which I'd burn on the grounds that it would be totalitarian for the State to condone the persecution of religious minorities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.