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.

 Easy E wrote:


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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.

Nkelsch has a fair point.

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.

This is not discrimination.

 Easy E wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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...

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.

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...

Free speech? What's that?

squidhills wrote:




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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

bigotry
ˈbɪgətri/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

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.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Cakes can be gay?

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)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Indeed. Don't like it? Boycott the shop.

And dress snazzy while doing it! Oh and bring King Cake!

And sequins!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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?

 Ouze wrote:

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.

Often political acts are considered speech. Somehow spending money can be considered speech (scratches head on that one).

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

Dang. I actually took that as Queenspace. Been a long time since I have seen the word "Q***r" spelled out

It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.

 -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.

I can see that. I be the same way to. I put the word up there with the November word

Edit

Ninja

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see that. I be the same way to. I put the word up there with the November word

Edit

Ninja

"From the darkness we strike, fast and lethal, and by the time our foes can react...darkness there and nothing more."