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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

...
....

No, that is not how it works.

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

It is not that certain classes are protected. Everyone is protected from certain behaviours.

If this baker ever made a wedding cake for a heterosexual marriage, when failing to make a cake for a homosexual marriage he committed a civil offence. It would have been the same if he did it the other way around.

If however the baker had refused to make any wedding cakes for anyone, whatever their creed, colour or cock placement preference, he would not have discriminated.

As a baker you don't have to make wedding cakes. But if you do make wedding cakes you have to make them for everyone's weddings.

"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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, that is not how it works.

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

So to cut to the crux of the matter has it been established that the complainants were discriminated against because of their sexuality? That a straight person who requested identical service would not have been refused

A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, that is not how it works.

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

So to cut to the crux of the matter has it been established that the complainants were discriminated against because of their sexuality? That a straight person who requested identical service would not have been refused

No.

From the facts reported in the OP, the Baker did not refuse to serve a Gay person.

He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

He objected to the content that they requested, not their homosexuality itself.


No matter how many times people in this thread twist the (currently) known and reported facts to conflate discrimination against a protected class with a refusal to endorse a political view, the answer is always going to be the same.

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

Perhaps I was unclear. When I said "identical service" I meant a cake with the identical content as was one that was refunded.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

Apparently some in this thread feel that it is discrimination, even though the customer is straight and the customer was not discriminated upon by his protected class, but simply his ideas... basically having 'government protected ideas'. And that is officially thought police.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

Indeed. But I expect you'd still get folk like Peregrine calling it discrimination, even if applied equally.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He refused to endorse or be seen to endorse their political campaign by producing politicised content carrying a political slogan (Support Gay Marriage). Presumably they could have ordered a cake without the political slogan, and he would have served them no problem. And a straight person who requested the same content (Support Gay Marriage) would also have been refused.

Seeing as the store was in Belfast taking a stance that no political slogans will be part of any order is not an unwise policy given that sectarian tension is still very much evident in the province

Indeed. But I expect you'd still get folk like Peregrine calling it discrimination, even if applied equally.

And by their logic, denying all political slogans still results in discrimination against "protected ideas" so no refusal of any service based upon content is ever allowed. If you are a business, you are basically a lobotimized slave at the mercy of your customers at the threat of government mandated work. You lose all personal rights when you go to work.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A straight person ordering a cake with a straight couple on it?

What if a straight couple ordered a cake that said "get bent"

Apparently some in this thread feel that it is discrimination, even though the customer is straight and the customer was not discriminated upon by his protected class, but simply his ideas... basically having 'government protected ideas'. And that is officially thought police.

Yes, I always find it extremely irritating when people complain on behalf of a certain protected group even though they personally haven't been discriminated against.

Like when I reposted in OT an email chain letter of Irish jokes that my Irish dad sent me (an ethnic Northern Irish protestant from Belfast, who LOVES Irish jokes and comedy), and one busy body who wasn't himself Irish called me racist, but several actual Irish people came to my defense. And these were pretty innocuous jokes of the "An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into a bar" calibre that weren't specific to Irish people - you could have easily switched the nationality and the effect would have been the same.


We're a nation of thin skinned hyper sensitive wimps who tremble with outrage whenever someone utters something we find even remotely offensive and politically incorrect, and yet we are so damn inconsistent over what is considered offensive.

Sometimes in life, people will offend you. Get over it.

Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

I'm 90% tee total, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Tennessee whiskey
Mexican tequila
South American rum

oh my!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Is that a deep fried...egg?

 Frazzled wrote:
Tennessee whiskey
Mexican tequila
South American rum

oh my!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who immediately thought: English Ale, Irish Whiskey, and Scottish Scotch?

English Ale, Irish Whiskey, Scotch egg

Is that a deep fried...egg?

if you think thats bad, you should see our Mars Bars.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like when I reposted in OT an email chain letter of Irish jokes that my Irish dad sent me (an ethnic Northern Irish protestant from Belfast, who LOVES Irish jokes and comedy), and one busy body who wasn't himself Irish called me racist, but several actual Irish people came to my defense. And these were pretty innocuous jokes of the "An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into a bar" calibre that weren't specific to Irish people - you could have easily switched the nationality and the effect would have been the same.

I think I remember that, I love people taking offence on my behalf....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Is that a deep fried...egg?

An egg wrapped in sausage meat, bread crumbed, and deep fried

 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.

Make an absolute monstrosity of a horrible cake. Problem solved.

What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

 -Shrike- wrote:
What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

No freedom of speech or religion allowed.

Am I doing it right?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
What if the terms and conditions of their product had stated that "No political messages are permitted"? Would they still be discriminating against homosexuals by refusing to create this specific cake?

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

No freedom of speech or religion allowed.

Am I doing it right?

Add a little more fear into it and jpg a "Knife Hand" for effect

 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.

I'm guessing UK business operates differently from US businesses, because I know that in the US, almost ALL small business owners, especially those who serve food have a sign somewhere in clear view within their establishment that reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" which would make it perfectly legal and justifiable to create a product supporting one political cause, but refuse service to someone asking for a product supporting another.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

So those who refuse to allow religious people to belief homosexuality is a sin would also be bigots against religious people. Or is it only bigotry when *you* dislikes the position... Funny thing about supporting freedom of speech, it means people are allowed to have differing opinions which can fight it out in the arena of ideas opposed to thought police mandating 'protected ideas'. Let the beliefs stand or fall on their merits.

Fun facts: not all homosexuals are for gay marriage and not all people who are against gay marriage are religious... Ideas do not equal protected classes because you can be pro-gay and not homosexual and be anti-gay and not religious.

 skyth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, but that wouldn't stop some activist with an axe to grind from suing. They'd argue that Gay Marriage is not a political issue, it's not up for debate, you're not allowed to disagree with and oppose it, either support and endorse it or you're a bigot who ought to go to jail.

Welll, considering that opposing gay marriage IS bigotry...Yeah. Not that bigots should go to jail or not be able to be bigots...

Oh, FFS . For the bazillionth time, NO.

Refusing to serve someone because they are gay = discrimination.

Refusing to endorse a political view by producing a politicised product carrying a political slogan = / = discrimination. Its free speech.

Theres a lot of people here who seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of "bigotry".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

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

 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.

The point that the person wasn't discriminated against for being a homosexual if the message on the cake would have also been rejected had a heterosexual person came in and ordered the same cake. You can't discriminate against the idea of gay marriage can you? Or do ideas have rights that can be abrogated?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Refusing to endorse a political view by producing a politicised product carrying a political slogan = / = discrimination. Its free speech.

If your service is putting messages on cakes that you sell and you refuse to put that message on the cake you sell then it's not free speech, it's discrimination.

There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

1) Wrong.

 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.

 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.

Whether you like it or not opposing gay marriage fits that dictionary definition you quoted.

No. Complete intolerance would have meant the Baker saying:

"Sorry, we don't serve your kind here, please leave".

Not:

"Sorry, I'm not willing to make a politicised product carrying that political slogan, because I disagree with it".

I'd say that trying to deny someone else the marriage rights they deserve is a pretty good example of "stubborn or complete intolerance".

How does refusing to endorse gay marriage equate to trying to prevent other people from having it?

You've been answered again and again, you keep disingenuously conflating separate issues and moving the goalposts, but the answer is still the fething same.

Not endorsing a political viewpoint by refusing to produce a specific politicised product carrying a political slogan is not discrimination against a gay person for being gay.

Refusing to serve the customer anything at all, whether a political product or non political product, because they are gay would be discrimination against a gay person for being gay.

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
There are a lot of posters in this thread displaying a stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs and opinions that differ from their own, and they ain't Christians.

1) Wrong.

And thats your opinion.