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

[dowie]

Uncle dowie look what you have done to this thread! You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off with incest as everyone was shy and sheepish around that, because the same arguments apply, but now you blow up the whole thread with PAEDOPHILLA!

some people seem to have got triggered by the mere mention of it in the same thread

 

[dowie]

That isn't how UK law works. If gay marriage is illegal, what law would they be breaking?

it is simply how the English language works - gay marriage isn't legal, gay marriage is illegal

examples of this usage in mainstream media:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36946914

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where gay marriage is illegal.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...galise-gay-marriage-scottish-tory-leader-says

The painting is part of a campaign across the city to raise the issue of LGBT rights in the only region of the UK or Ireland where gay marriage is still illegal.

now instead of trying to be pedantic over my use of some word which I then waste time having to explain why not get back to the actual topic of the thread

 

[dowie]

Typical liberals, only wanting liberalism when it comes to their own interests am I right?

the result of this ruling isn't very liberal at all IMO, you can refuse custom based on some politics/message but as soon as someone attaches a protected group to the message then you're forced to comply with the request... that is a rather illiberal position.

Maajid sums it up nicely

https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154409373526558/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

amusingly, in the comments, he's also used the Mohamed cake example I posted on here months ago

 

[dowie]

I know we're so far down the rabbit hole that this thread has become a self-parody of itself but boy oh boy does it help you define those posters whose views seem reasonable and those who seem bat**** crazy less reasonable.

I think that this thread, the Hillary/Trump car crash one in SC, and the death penalty thread would show absolute correlation of views for most individual posters across those threads and whilst that is perhaps not overly surprising, it does provide me with some certainty over if not morally integrity certainly moral reciprocity.

I think you might be confusing people presenting more extreme analogies to demonstrate their point with people supporting certain things.

likewise this other poster seems to have missed the point in his reaction to someone posing a similar question

Are you really this stupid, or are you just looking for a reaction..?

 

[dowie]

So do I, on this particular aspect of this particular issue. He presents a line of argument that is logical and consistent both internally and externally and he presents it clearly. There's no rational reason to disagree with him, which is why the posts disagreeing have to ignore what he's written and rely on repeating claims that don't make sense.

The people objecting to incestuous marriage between consenting adults who can't have biological children together are doing the same thing as people objecting to homosexual marriage between consenting adults. Exactly the same thing, using the same ideas and even the same words in many cases.

^^ this, yet as the concept is much less acceptable socially then it is rather awkward to have to state, if they support the ruling in this case, that they also therefore support the idea that a baker could be forced to make an incest cake...

perhaps we can add another layer to this - the baker is proud of his custom cakes and displays all custom cakes in the window prior to collection. Baker might well be also discriminating if he doesn't display the massive incest cake in the window too.

 

[dowie]

Frankly I think both results are stupid, there aren't many details on the BBC article but if it was literally just a cake for the gay wedding then that is dubious IMO and blatant discrimination - though they do mention:

The conservative Christian argued "creative artists" have a right to decide what they sell.

and I wouldn't put it past the BBC (as much as they try to be unbiased) to deliberately omit the details of the actual argument there. I guess technically putting two male figures on the cake could count (though is a bit more of a stretch than the original case).

I think in the original case the objection was valid re: the message, in that case they're not refusing to sell a gay couple a cake but refusing to write a political message and that is where I do think that people in a creative role who take on commissioned work ought to be free to object.

I think my example posted re: the original story is still valid - try going to a muslim baker and getting them to do a Mohammed cake, perhaps a "Jesus and Mo" cake for an atheist's birthday, or perhaps one with a the Humanists UK message: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

Bakers ought to be entitled to censor or refuse things that go against their belief - as an amusing example though there was this recent story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44217118

Anyone who has graduated from high school or university should be due a decent celebration.

But Jacob Koscinski, a US high school student, ended up somewhat disappointed.

The South Carolina student's mother had asked a local grocery store to print the term "Summa Cum Laude" (with the highest distinction) on her son's cake.

The store censored the term "cum" deeming it offensive and put three hyphens in its place.

It seems to have been automatically censored by the online ordering system in that case and you'd think perhaps the person making it ought to have spotted the obvious mistake but regardless, that bakery clearly has made a decision to censor certain things/essentially refuse to create certain things (words) on the basis that they deem them offensive.

 

[dowie]

Seems like the right decision - there is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake for gay people and refusing to bake a cake containing a political message etc..

as per my OP 4 years ago:

I'm normally pro gay rights but I think this is a bit of a knee jerk reaction from the equality commission... they've seen that some gay people have been refused something and have instantly gone on the attack.

this comment from a gay rights campaigner also misses the point IMO:


The fact is they haven't refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual orientation - in fact I'm sure the gay couple can go back an order any number of baked goods from that shop without discrimination. What they've refused to do is to print a political message they don't agree with on a cake:

Edit 1 : (they could have perhaps also refused on the basis that they were asked to breach copyright re: the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie too)

Edit 2 - re-reading the thread is interesting, @Jokester pointed this out on page 2, could have saved rather a lot of other people's money if they'd just denied based on copyright re: Sesame Street

(then again I guess we wouldn't have this ruling to clarify what ought to be common sense to most people but seemingly triggered a knee jerk reaction by the SJWs at the equality commission)

 

[dowie]

quite funny to read through the first few pages of the thread, several posters seemingly not getting that the baker isn't refusing to bake cakes for gay people but is refusing to bake a cake with a specific political message on it... rather an important distinction and despite several hypothetical arguments to try and illustrate why there is a difference there posters carried on with the view that the bakers are refusing to bake a cake for gay people

 

[dowie]

A win for the rights of corporate entities. Right on, brother.

4 years later, still doesn't get it...

 

[dowie]

Given the post I was responding to, what have I misunderstood?

Pretty much everything about the case, all the way through the thread.

(The same should apply to the B&B case too!)

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.

 

[dowie]

Glad it worked out for them. In my mind if it's your business, you should have the right to serve who you please.

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.

Like.... not baking a gay cake because it's against your religious views?

^^^ still doesn't get it

 

[dowie]

Without the slogan, it wouldn't have turned on such. You couldn't turn down a legit gay wedding cake and say "we don't sell gay cakes to anyone, so it's not discriminatory", because that policy is inherently discriminatory.

They've said that they'd still welcome the customer into the store, even now after he's wasted their time and caused them stress, he's welcome to buy a cake. He's just not allowed a cake with a particular slogan on it...

without the slogan he'd have simply had a fairly ordinary white cake with or without two Sesame Street characters (depending on whether they'd also have had an issue with copyright there) and there wouldn't be a need for a court case in the first place

 

[dowie]

I suppose the question is: can he buy a straight-up gay wedding cake with no slogan?

I look forward to this sequel

the cake he wanted was a ordinary, single tier white wedding cake, with a slogan on and with two Sesame Street characters, we already know that without the slogan he could have bought that cake from that baker, they'd still sell him that cake today even - the only uncertainty there is perhaps the Sesame Street characters re: potential copyright issues

 

[dowie]

To be clear, here, they didn't pass judgement on a standard gay cake, just the gay cake in this case, which had the additional provocation of the slogan

To be clear, cakes don't have a sexual orientation...

 

[dowie]

Backwards reasoning at its finest - the Supreme Court could split atoms with its logic to get the outcome it wants

Perfectly logical decision and in agreement with: dowie VS the GD SJWs [2014]

 

[dowie]

Just the way their judgement is framed on the identity of the cake buyer being irrelevant - even though in reality it’s highly unlikely that any other cake buyer would buy said cake, so in that sense it is relevant.

I think the outcome is correct but it’s always interesting to see how they get there. I’m sure they could have decided the other way using other similarly phrased methods.

Plenty of straight people support gay marriage and could buy a cake in general with such a slogan on it that the bakers would object too, parents often buy wedding cakes for their kids too (not that there was much about this cake to make it specifically a wedding cake). Taking it further plenty of black lives matter protestors are white etc...

 

[dowie]

Peter Tatchell (fervent gay rights campaigner for the last 30 years) put it very well I think:

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose. The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

So basically the point made on page 1, post 1 in this thread. It is quite funny how this went on for 140 pages.

 

[dowie]

The idea that if you 'publish' a phrase then you are necessarily showing support for it is, imo, facile. Is the baker worried that his God will immediately assume that the cake slogan must also be the baker's own position? Not the smartest God in the box...

I think that is rather irrelevant, what are you referring to re: showing support for it anyway?

Should a muslim baker have to make a Mohammed cake? Should a black baker have to make a white power cake?

What does showing support for it have to do with this? The main issue is that they disagree with the message/creation and simply don't want to make it.

 

[dowie]

The sooner Ireland is united the better.

Reunited with the rest of the British Isles? j/k

WTF does that have to do with this case?

 

[dowie]

But you are probably right, the lunatic Protestants would probably go on a killing spree if Ireland were to be reunited

Still, on the positive side, they wouldn't be propping up an equally lunatic Tory Government in Great Britain

The thread is about a cake, a gay cake!