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.

More opinions in here then you can slice a cake

 Jihadin wrote:
More opinions in here then you can slice a cake

I have a scalpel.. I would take you up on that challenge...

 Jihadin wrote:
More opinions in here then you can slice a cake

Is it a rainbow cake?

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)

 dæl wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

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.

 dæl wrote:

[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.

 dæl wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Even the Army can't make you do that.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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).

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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!

nkelsch wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Companies are not people over here. They don't have the same rights as individuals.

People do not lose their rights when they go to work.

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Companies are not people over here. They don't have the same rights as individuals.

People do not lose their rights when they go to work.

Then the company could pass the work along to another employee.

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

PhantomViper wrote:

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?

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Companies are not people over here. They don't have the same rights as individuals.

People do not lose their rights when they go to work.

To further extrapolate what nkelsch said... the way things work here in the US...

If corporation have no 1st Amendment rights (as you say the UK doesn't)... then government can censor them.

In order for that to occur, you'd then have to overturn a plethora of established precedent, ie: NYT vs Sullivan and Hustler vs Falwell and NAACP vs Alabama.

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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!

PhantomViper wrote:


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.

THATS the difference.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:


But that goes against the case at issue.

No it doesn't.

"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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We're European. We don't value freedom of speech like you Yanks do, sadly.

Article 10 of the ECHR disagrees with you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.

 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?

 reds8n wrote:


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.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Should a baker have to make cakes for the New Black Panthers? How about the KKK?

Depends if the cake said " Happy Birthday Klansman" or "The only good black is a dead black"

Though I could see the KKK being refused services in total, it's called a boycott. Boycotts are normally legal.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.