Cakes for all you bigots

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No, in a word, I'm not sure where you're going with this so don't know which direction to expand on that answer, but I suspect that was deliberate on your part.

 

I think that bakeries should have the right to refuse to bake cakes with slogans that they disagree with, that's pretty specific and relevant.

 

I'd agree with your comments if they were directed towards an individual, but when it's a business providing a service then I think that rules are different.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I'd agree with your comments if they were directed towards an individual, but when it's a business providing a service then I think that rules are different.

 

Ok fair enough, so do you have an answer to the question mentioned by Truman, or perhaps an explanation as to why the two situations are not comparable:

 

"what would happen if a lesbian t-shirt printer was asked to do a shirt proclaiming "Homosexuality is an abomination"..would the company fulfill the order?"

 

I don't think businesses should be able to refuse custom to anyone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever, I agree with restricting the rights of business's to associate freely with whoever they like, and conversely not with people they don't like. So yeah I don't think businesses should have all the same rights as individuals.

 

But I really don't think businesses' should be forced to provide promotional materials for causes they oppose.

Edited May 19, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Ok fair enough, so do you have an answer to the question mentioned by Truman, or perhaps an explanation as to why the two situations are not comparable:

 

"what would happen if a lesbian t-shirt printer was asked to do a shirt proclaiming "Homosexuality is an abomination"..would the company fulfill the order?"

 

I cannot talk for other people, but personally if it was me I'd take the money and fulfil the the order, I'd think about replacing the t-shirts for t-shirts made from mixed fibres though.

[Magilla 510]

So if they can't follow their religious beliefs whilst running a businesses they don't actually have freedom of religion.

 

Not at all, the business and their personal beliefs are mutually exclusive, there is no connection other than one they have mistakenly (or incorrectly IMV) made.

 

Again, does a persons belief outweigh the right of another person not be to abused/discrimiated against?

 

I'd say not.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Magilla

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I don't think businesses should be able to refuse custom to anyone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever, I agree with restricting the rights of business's to associate freely with whoever they like, and conversely not with people they don't like. So yeah I don't think businesses should have all the same rights as individuals.

 

But I really don't think businesses' should be forced to provide promotional materials for causes they oppose.

 

I agree that this is more of a grey area as opposed something a bit more black and white. For example, if a cake maker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

I think that the judge summed it up well, she said:

 

"The defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply-held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others."

[flamingjimmy 10]

I cannot talk for other people, but personally if it was me I'd take the money and fulfil the the order, I'd think about replacing the t-shirts for t-shirts made from mixed fibres though.

 

I guess the question was framed a little wrong. I don't mean to ask whether you think they would fulfill the order or whether you would.

 

What I mean to ask is do you think in the hypothetical (though fairly plausible) situation raised by that question, that the lesbian t-shirt printer should be forced to make the 'homosexuality is an abomination' t-shirt by law?

[harvey19 541]

So how would you enforce the law then in relation to discrimination then?[/quotegly

We are talking about baking a cake for goodness sake.

Get things into proportion.

I am sure other bakers would have baked one for them and included the slogan.

Why didn't they go to an homosexual baker if they felt so strongly about such matters and realised others did not agree with them ?

[Cyclone 10]

How do they know?

 

They don't unless the business is stupid enough to tell them.

 

Like "get out of my shop, we don't want {insert minority group here} in here".

 

---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 15:24 ----------

 

What a load of bobbins ... no one should be made to do something they don't want to do. I'm sure there would've been plenty of other people willing to make the cake ... it wouldn't bother me a jot. It's only a cake for crying out loud ... no need to get all upset and call the police/get a solicitor (whatever).

 

I kind of see the point about the slogan.

 

But on the other hand if they simply refused to bake ANY cake for an openly gay person, then they should indeed be forced to bake it, and they should be prosecuted for discrimination.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I think that the judge summed it up well, she said:

 

"The defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply-held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others."

 

I don't see which rights of others their stance was contrary to.

 

People don't have a right to have any sort of cake they want made for them.

 

If some neo-nazis wanted my local bakery to make them a batch of swastika cupcakes I damn sure hope they'd refuse.

 

Whoops, totally godwinned myself! But I still think my point stands!

 

---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 15:27 ----------

 

But on the other hand if they simply refused to bake ANY cake for an openly gay person, then they should indeed be forced to bake it, and they should be prosecuted for discrimination.

 

Speaking outside Belfast County Court after the ruling, Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur said his company was "extremely disappointed with the judgment".

 

"We've said from the start that our issue was with the message on the cake, not with the customer and that we didn't know what the sexual orientation of Mr Lee was, and it wasn't relevant either. We've always been happy to serve any customers who come into our shops.

 

"The ruling suggests that all business owners will have to be willing to promote any cause or campaign, no matter how much they disagree with it."

 

source

[Magilla 510]

"The ruling suggests that all business owners will have to be willing to promote any cause or campaign, no matter how much they disagree with it."

 

source

 

This is, IMV, the funamental mistake they have made. By baking the cake, they are in no way condoning or promoting the issue they take exception to. They're just making a cake.

[Cyclone 10]

I'd say that the ruling suggests that all business owners will have to be willing to print slogans that promote any cause or campaign that has a special legal status, no matter how much they disagree with it.

If someone asks my business to support something by printing banners I'll tell them to get lost, we don't print banners (for example).

And if a cake maker is asked to produce a slogan 'cake sucks' then they can refuse as the opinion that cake sucks has no special legal protection.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I guess the question was framed a little wrong. I don't mean to ask whether you think they would fulfill the order or whether you would.

 

What I mean to ask is do you think in the hypothetical (though fairly plausible) situation raised by that question, that the lesbian t-shirt printer should be forced to make the 'homosexuality is an abomination' t-shirt by law?

 

My take on the subject is, "support gay marriage" is not a slogan aimed at insulting anyone else, but a slogan aimed at supporting a homosexual's rights. "Homosexuality is an abomination" is a slogan aimed at attacking the rights of a homosexual. So there is a difference between the two slogans.

 

It would be up to a court to see if the difference merited the lesbian printer being punished for not accepting the order, and it would be interesting to see how the case panned out.