Cakes for all you bigots

[flamingjimmy 10]

How, is there some identifying mark on the cake that shows where it was baked and a statement of support?

 

 

 

Lets take a printing business, for example, are you suggesting that by printing whatever their customers want on some paper, they're implicitely declaring their support for, and promoting the customers cause?

 

I think that's a pretty big leap to take.

 

It's not one that I'm making so I'm ok though.

 

When they run a business that produces things with slogans on them, nobody would believe that the production means that they as a business support whatever the slogan says.

 

It's not about perception, about whether people think the cake or the printing business themselves have declared their support for the cause, it's about actually being forced to provide material support for the promotion of their case.

 

I don't make this argument to protect them from embarrassment because people might think the bakery supports gay marriage, I don't really care about that.

 

It's that by forcing them to actually materially make the cake they are forcing them to physically, and actually contribute to the promotion of that cause, not just the perception that they support it.

[Plain Talker 11]

Even as late as thirty years since most "normal right minded individual"(s) would have burst out laughing at the concept of gay marriage.

 

So "normality" varies quite a bit.

 

And thirty years before that, it was considered horrific that a black man and a white woman, or a white man and a black woman should be permitted to marry. Indeed, in many parts of the United States, there were miscegenation laws, preventing such mixed race marriages.

 

And think on how utterly absurd it would be considered, today, to hold that view (well.... to all but the most cerebrally challenged and knuckle-dragging of fools, anyway)

[Cyclone 10]

To be fair they did express it, by discriminating.

 

Did they though?

Is there a suggestion that they would have made the cake if only a straight couple had asked for it?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Did they though?

Is there a suggestion that they would have made the cake if only a straight couple had asked for it?

 

The facts of the case say otherwise. They refused service based on sexual orientation.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

But they have deeply held opinions that homosexuals should not have the same rights as the rest of us.

 

In a free democratic society they should be able to express that, even though most of us think they're idiots for believing that.

 

I don't disagree with you. There also has to line however, where a message is just too provocative, so where would you draw the line?

Edited May 19, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Alcoblog 10]

This sprang to my mind whilst watching this thread ...

With all this PC stuff being the 'in thing' nowadays, where one wonders, do the cookbooks stand. Is this legal anymore ... unless it may upset/incur the wrath of those of a compensatory, 'quick buck' leaning?

Should Mary Berry et al, be leaving the country under cover of darkness?

[Cyclone 10]

It's not one that I'm making so I'm ok though.

 

 

 

It's not about perception, about whether people think the cake or the printing business themselves have declared their support for the cause, it's about actually being forced to provide material support for the promotion of their case.

 

I don't make this argument to protect them from embarrassment because people might think the bakery supports gay marriage, I don't really care about that.

 

It's that by forcing them to actually materially make the cake they are forcing them to physically, and actually contribute to the promotion of that cause, not just the perception that they support it.

 

When the cause is equal rights for homosexuals, isn't not supporting it tantamount to discrimination against homosexuals? I guess this is the view the court took.

 

(Although you'll note that I've agreed with you already earlier on).

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I expect them to work on cases of some worth.

I wonder how much money has been made from this silly episode.

 

So you expect lawyers to only work "on cases of some worth", and sit about twiddling their thumbs until that case came along! Fair enough. I'd expect them to go about their business earning a wage. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[Cyclone 10]

The facts of the case say otherwise. They refused service based on sexual orientation.

 

Which facts suggest that? I was under the impression that they refused to make a specific cake slogan, not refused to serve these particular customers.

[InigoMontoya 10]

This sprang to my mind whilst watching this thread ...

With all this PC stuff being the 'in thing' nowadays, where one wonders, do the cookbooks stand. Is this legal anymore ... unless it may upset/incur the wrath of those of a compensatory, 'quick buck' leaning?

Should Mary Berry et al, be leaving the country under cover of darkness?

 

Surely they only become "fairy cakes" when you slice the top off, break it in half, and then put the pieces back in to the topping to make "wings".

 

As in. "Like fairies."

[flamingjimmy 10]

I don't disagree with you. There also has to line however, where a message is just too provocative, so where would you draw the line?

 

At incitement to violence.

[Magilla 510]

It's that by forcing them to actually materially make the cake they are forcing them to physically, and actually contribute to the promotion of that cause, not just the perception that they support it.

 

Well, I don't feel that's the case and I personally wouldn't assume implicit support. I don't see how anyone who makes something for someone else could be personally promoting that cause unless it's clearly stated.

 

Anyway, if they feel that strongly about it, they're free to stand by their convictions and pay the fines instead.