Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[dowie]

And yet almost all of the comparisons have been to bad things.

that's a matter of opinion - to some Jewish people 'Israel' in general isn't necessarily a bad thing, to some Christian people Gay marriage is a bad thing

you're not the sole arbitrator of 'good' and 'bad' things... this is why we have freedom of speech

 

[dowie]

Fair enough and black people can sit at the back of the bus too, after all, it is only indirect discrimination, they still get a ride home.

no that's just a very poor analogy... no one has been refused a cake in general or been told they can only buy the second rate cakes.... they've been told the baker doesn't want to create a cake especially for them with a particular message on it.

People in creative industries turn down work for a variety of reasons... especially if they disagree with the subject matter.

 

[dowie]

It is deliberate, I am just using exactly the same ridiculous comparisons that others are using. e.g. Pro Gay marriage is like supporting the BNP. It is effectively indirect discrimination, which I don't really see as that much different from direct discrimination.

I've not said pro-gay marriage is the same as the BNP. I'm saying that turning down work that involves supporting either cause has the same principle behind it. You think the BNP is bad... I do too, I also support gay marriage... however I don't feel that people should be forced to support either.

It would be double standards if people were only allowed to turn down political messages that wider society generally thought were 'wrong' but were forced to support political messages that society generally deems 'good'.

Your protest that the BNP and Israel are me picking 'bad' causes as example is irrelevant - I've picked them as it should be obvious why someone might object to supporting them. The principle though is still the same... should someone who doesn't support say Israel, the Jewish homeland be forced to run an advert in say their Arab publication? I don't think they should, I think they've got the freedom to publish what they want to publish in line with their editorial stance.

Likewise, a baker should be able to produce/put in his shop window things he is comfortable producing... gay marriage might well be seen widely as a 'good' cause but some people don't agree with it and frankly forcing people to support/endorse a view they don't agree with is just wrong - regardless of whether its just the people with the 'wrong' opinions who are anti the 'good' things. The baker isn't a newspaper editor... but he's still running a business and has the right to have an opinion, to support causes he agrees with and not support causes he doesn't. He's refused to print a message supporting a cause he hasn't refused to serve any particular group.

 

[dowie]

An individual has the right to free speech and freedom of expression up to the current laws on incitement, however I do not feel that we should be extending those same rights to businesses. Businesses are not people even if they are run by and owned by people.

Sole traders are people, partnerships are groups of people and companies are also people and its perfectly fine for them to hold a view, stance on an issue if they want.

 

[dowie]

I haven't done that, it more akin to someone refusing to bake a cake with a Support The Conservatives Party or Support Scottish Independence when the baker is a staunch Socialist or Unionist respectively.

And to some people that *is* a bad thing in the same way others(most people) see the BNP as a bad thing... which shouldn't matter though. People can refuse to support whatever stance/issues they're not comfortable with.

 

[dowie]

Their business isn't though.

a sole trader is acting on his own behalf - he is the business

if someone forms a company then that company is a person - it can sue, it can be sued etc.. it can have an official stance on a range of issues.

I have yet to hear a reasoned argument as to why denying equal marriage rights to gay people isn't a bad thing though.

its completely irrelevant though whether you believe it is bad or good or whether most people believe it is bad or good... people are free to agree/disagree with that stance. Freedom of speech doesn't require that your views are rational nor that you get majority consensus for your views... that kind of defeats the whole principle.

 

[dowie]

Do Ashers make cakes for people re-marrying? I suspect so, so they have no right to claim there objection is based on a 'traditional' view of the concept.

they can claim its based on anything they like - the justification is irrelevant, its their view and that's all that matters - freedom of speech doesn't require justification for views you chose to express or not express

 

[dowie]

The fact that a business has a legal identity doesn't change the point that businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on select protected criteria.

I didn't say they could - I said they could take a stance on issues

they're not discriminating against which people they're serving they're choosing what work they will take on

 

[dowie]

But, as a company, it has to abide by different laws in certain circumstances. The anti discrimination laws apply to businesses not people. As long as I am not inciting hatred I can be as homophobic as I like, I can't however run a business in a homophobic manner.

Anti discrimination law applies to businesses discriminating against people. They haven't refused to serve any particular group of people.

There isn't a law that says you have to support any possible view regardless of your personal opinion... I think you're allowed to discriminate between opinions, views, political campaigns, symbols etc..etc.. as these things are not people - they're just 'things' and anti discrimination legislation doesn't exist to protect 'things' it exists to protect people.

And I can disagree with their stance and challenge it. Objectively I just cannot see the harm in gay marriage rights.

yes you can indeed... what you can't do is force your views on them or force them to support your views regardless of how sure you are that your view is right and how you can't objectively see anything wrong with your view

 

[dowie]

It's not irrelevant if your defense is "I'm not homophobic, I just support the 'traditional' view of marriage" and your actions clearly don't support that stance consistently, it seems obvious your actual reasons are due to one of disliking gay people getting married an not a conservative protection of an established tradition.

it is still irrelevant, their state reasons are irrelevant - that is my point.... they could come out and say a green eyed monster told them gay marriage is wrong... its completely irrelevant - the only relevant point is that they disagreed with the message they were asked to create - the reason for the refusal/disagreement shouldn't matter - they should have the right to refuse to create work they disagree with

You seem to keep forgetting that creating rules that either directly or indirectly affect certain groups (homosexuals, people of a certain gender, the disabled, racial groups etc) is against the law.

I'm not forgetting anything... they've refused to support a stance supported by a certain group.. so what - just because a large number of people support something doesn't mean you have to.

No the law is all that matters. Regardless of what you say, people are not corporations (are you Mitt Romney by the way?) they are entities owned and ran by people. As such they are subject to the discrimination laws of the land that individuals are not.

Also, refusing service to someone who wants a pro-gay marriage cake is not "freedom of speech", if anything it is denying the buyer theirs.

its quite clearly an issue of freedom of speech for the same reason that say a newspaper (another company) can refuse to run an advert it disagrees with

 

[dowie]

So please explain how someone who holds the opinion that gay marriage is wrong is not ultimately basing their opinion on a negative view of homosexuality and how it is a discriminatory position.

they are separate things ergo it is possible to not dislike homosexuality and still be opposed to gay marriage

some gay people oppose gay marriage - do they hate themselves?

 

[dowie]

Obviously the Equality Commission disagrees with you and does see it as discrimination against a protected group. It may not be direct discrimination but the law also protects against indirect discrimination.

well yes obviously they do - but are they always right? We'll have to see what happens... I really hope it doesn't succeed.

A lot could hinge on exactly what the bakers said when cancelling the order, if they said "We cannot make this cake because we disagree with homosexuality" then they are effectively discriminating due to sexuality.

they considered the order carefully then contacted the customer to refuse it and refund them I think they've likely been tactful when doing so

I am quite willing to accept any argument as to why it is right to deny gays equal marriage rights. So far no one seems to be able to make on though. Regardless I am not forcing them to change their views. However as a society we have decided that they cannot use those views to discriminate against people when running a business.

I'm not interested in denying gays marriage rights... but that's completely irrelevant to the thread - I don't have to justify some other person's opinion to say that I support their right to have that opinion. Maybe its simply because their Jesus book says marriage is between man and woman and they think therefore Gay people should have a similar arrangement but called something else... who knows - it doesn't matter really... they have views/beliefs and shouldn't be forced to support other views/beliefs they're opposed to.

 

[dowie]

In this instance it is the group being discriminated against rather than the individual.

no it isn't - its message supporting a view, political stance, campaign

lots of people from a particular group and from other groups support it... its a campaign that affects a particular group - its still a view/stance

 

[dowie]

Eh? The person who provides the design (i.e the customer) is the one making the proclamation, not one making the cake.

oh that's OK then Abdul's printers will be happy to help the BNP print the fliers after all....

 

[dowie]

Of course it should matter. "Sorry but I can't make the cake you want today because we've run out of brown icing but can provide it in a couple of days time" is massively different to "Sorry but I refuse to make a cake that depicts ethnic minorities on it".

No the reasons for refusing to support a political stance shouldn't matter...

How is making a cake 'supporting a stance'? It's just fulfilling an order. Would the bakery turn down a cake that said "Liverpool Will Win The League This Year" if the owner thought it was unlikely, of course they wouldn't.

the same way that agreeing to print BNP leaflets supports a stance... if you're fundamentally opposed to the view then you'll likely want to disassociate yourself from it and not support it by helping to add to any campaign whether that be by refusing leaflets or refusing to bake a simple cake with a political message

But a newspaper can't refuse to take an advert if by doing so they are discriminating against a protected group.

they'd likely only be doing that if they refused to take an advert based on who the person requesting the advert was rather than based on the content of the advert... a newspaper should have complete freedom to refuse any content it simply doesn't agree with/that conflicts with its editorial stance etc... in the US this is protected by the 1st amendment...

likewise the baker is denying certain content - he's not denying a cake in general to any group... I'm sure the customer could drop the suit and go back and buy a cake..

 

[dowie]

But the Bible doesn't say that.

it doesn't matter if it does or not

 

[dowie]

A distinction that may be more semantic than real if the business is choosing which work to take on by vetting the people making the order.

Then they'd be discriminating against people - which is rather different... If a straight guy had asked for the same cake he'd likely have got the same refusal. They're not refusing to serve a person they're refusing to create something with a message they're opposed to. That is their right IMO, their 'editorial stance' so to speak... no they're not a newspaper turning down an advert but they're in the business of creating, they have views and they've got the right to express their views and not express views they don't agree with. They've turned down the product/political stance not the customer - ergo I really hope they win this case.

 

[dowie]

Ashers don't advertise themselves as being a Christian Bakery that only sells "straight" cakes. If they did then maybe "the gays" would have gone to a different bakery. You can't operate a public business that doesn't target a specific market then deny a product to someone just because it is against their beliefs, that is the law.

Yes you can. They're not denying 'a product' in the general sense they're refusing to be involved with making a specific product.

Does a printer need to advertise itself as anti-fascist in order to turn down BNP fliers?

Would an Arab owned newspaper need to state up front it's opposition to Israel before it turns down some Jewish organisation's pro Isaraeli advert?

 

[dowie]

A bus driver taking fifteen Conservative supporters to an event isn't supporting the Conservative party - there is no reason to bring in personal beliefs into a standard business transaction.

There is every reason to do so when it comes to creating something. It's a basic freedom of speech/freedom of expression issue.

I simply disagree that baking a cake is an action of support to a political view (I also don't agree that equality is a political argument to begin with) they may not share. They are free to not support equal rights for gay marriage, their business on the other hand is not.

Its a political argument whether you're so sure you're on the right side of it or not. There are uneven numbers of men and women therefore I propose that all marriage creates inequality... I'm anti marriage on the basis of equality... or at least I could be if I chose to have that view... it's as valid as anyone else's view as it's just that, a view....

 

[dowie]

Love the "how extreme can we make our examples" attitude here.

My view is the same. A business trades as a business, nothing more nothing less. A business does not pick and choose what work it wishes to take on based on the personal views of their employees.

It does on the views of the owners/management though.

Most creative businesses do - we had a photographer in here saying he refuses to do selective colouring - that's his call... his creations - if a client wants it they can find a different photographer. People doing custom work have the right to turn down work - they have freedom if expression/freedom of speech. Turning down particular work != turning down particular customers.