4 years later, still doesn't get it...
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
4 years later, still doesn't get it...
Soldato
Given the post I was responding to, what have I misunderstood?
This...
And This...
Strikes me that the whole situation absolutely reeks of "Vexatious Litigation"
To my mind, if it could be demonstrated that the complainant made his order in order to deliberately provoke a confrontation, he should be prosecuted.
(The same should apply to the B&B case too!)
Pretty much everything about the case, all the way through the thread.
Not it shouldn't, there is a distinction there between refusing service to people because they're gay and refusing to create a custom item/provide a particular service. Anyone whether straight or gay could attempt to order a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage and be refused, the baker isn't discriminating against the customer but is refusing to create a particular product that conflicts with his beliefs.
This is what people arguing that the bakers were wrong were also conflating and I provided several analogies to try and illustrate this distinction more clearly earlier on in the thread.
Unfortunately the current (banned ice word) mentality going around means if people have a view they feel that they have the right to enforce that on others.
At least the supreme court smacked this one example down.
Man of Honour
Glad it worked out for them. In my mind if it's your business, you should have the right to serve who you please.
Soldato
Like.... not baking a gay cake because it's against your religious views?
I'd disagree, you shouldn't be able to choose who to serve based on race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.. but that isn't what the case is about.
^^^ still doesn't get it
Soldato
you really really don't get it do you?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you on that
Corporate entities are run by people. People make the decisions (for now). Why should your company be forced to make a product which supports a political view that you don't support? As has been pointed out in the case by the justices, the person is not being discriminated against, if a straight person asked for the same thing they would have denied it. They are choosing not to do it, not because the person is gay, but because they would be producing something which is promoting something that they disagree with.
Soldato
director of the bakery:
You can fall back on court rulings, but it doesn't change the reasoning behind why it happened in the first place. That being;
Can you flesh out your argument rather than a throw away comment please.
They're not enforcing their views on others, it's the opposite way around. By refusing a service you're not enforcing anything, it's the neutral position. Forcing someone to create something with a political message on that you disagree with is enforcing your views on others. This guy goes to a well known christian bakery and asks for a cake with a political slogan that he knows will go against christian beliefs. It's firstly ******* stupid, and if you're cynical: sinister. He could have just gone to any other bakery and be done with it. Instead he's made himself look like a complete mug and wasted a load of the tax payers money. Good job.
Soldato
You claimed it was a win for the right of expression.
In actual fact, corporate entities have no right of expression. they did, however, win this case. So my point was "why are you so happy for that?"
Why is it a mockery? It seems to be a sensible method to me! Lower courts have less knowledgeable and less experienced judges who set judgments to the masses of cases, as it goes up the chain the more senior and knowledgeable judges deal with more complex cases and don't need to bother with the "routine" cases.
If you're unable to distinguish between the 2 things then its pointless to say anything other than you're wrong and the supreme court says you're wrong.
Soldato
i know exactly what the director of the bakery said, no need to quote them.
and you don't need to keep quoting the below - it is not an statement in favour of or supporting your argument
no it's not.
the below quote sums it up quite well. no one forced or tried to force anything upon the chap looking the cake made. did anyone at the bakery try and make him change what he wanted on the cake, did they try and change his beliefs or sexual preference? he was quite free to go and take his custom elsewhere and have the cake made. the only thing that could be argued was forced upon him was the location/establishment that made the cake - hardly as massive encumberment.
yet on the other hand he tried to get the law to force someone to do something they didn't feel comfortable doing. no one tried to force him into anything. he was the sole person doing any 'enforcing' or rather attempting to.
Soldato
that is probably a far better reply than mine. i fear there's no explanation possible that will make this particular poster understand what actually happened in this case.
Soldato
I question the sort of people there employing at the Equalities Commission, to spend all that public money on a cake seems like a waste of time to tackle someones narrow minded prejudice. The damage was done to the bakery as soon as it was reported in the news.