BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:38 AM

"Like many people, the bakers believe that marriage should remain only for people not closely related, conforming to the local age restriction and of opposite sex."
Now you are compounding Joe's indefensible statement by comparing gay marriage to two criminal acts - incest and paedophila - and you say you are not "disdaining gay marriage" !!
Is that a closet door I hear banging?
Fro the beginning of this referendum campaign the main opponents has been the church (the last organisation to have any say on sexual matters with their recent track record) and their adherents.
Up to the last week or so they have kept a fairly low profile, but now they have entered the fray with a vengeance with their claims that Gay marriage is an attack on the family and that to pass the amendment would be to undermine the family as an institution.
It really is time these beasts were put out to grass before they can do any more damage to society.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:29 AM

Joe is right, evey self employed person is free to refuse to work for someone, what they cannot do in this case is give an honest reason. both sides are silly on this one ,the gay couple should have just gone somewhere else to get their cake made, and the cake company should have not made a big issue about their opposition to making the cake.
many people are prejudice against black people that is legal providing they do not voice their opinions in public, the cake companies mistake was to make their views known.
I am in favour of gay people having equal rights,but i do not think this case will change anything very much, we already know that certain christian groups have anti gay prejudices and will continue to do so, this cake company will probably still refuse to make cakes for gay people but just not give a genuine reason, they do not have to give any reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:20 AM

A good summary here from the BBC. Includes the unequivocal statement

District Judge Isobel Brownlie said Ashers was "conducting a business for profit", and it was not a religious group.

The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.

The judge said she accepted that Ashers has "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.

No amount of 'what ifs' or speculation will change the fact that in law it was deemed to be discrimination against the plaintiff, not the message.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:08 AM

I will say that this is a good demonstration of the difference in attitudes about speech in the UK, as opposed to the US attitude.

No it isn't, Joe. You keep skirting the fact that the judge did not believe it was about the message but about the plaintiff being gay. In the UK you can say what you want but you cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. I believe it is the same in the US although some states still seem to allow this type of repression.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:02 AM

I will say that this is a good demonstration of the difference in attitudes about speech in the UK, as opposed to the US attitude.

In the U.S., government and the courts can't stop people from saying what they want to say. And they can't force people to say what they don't want to say. I don't think the plaintiff would win a similar lawsuit in the U.S.

In the British Isles, such coercion is apparently appropriate.

There is value in both approaches. Is one of them right and the other wrong? No, they're just different.

As for me, I prefer the U.S. philosophy about speech. Apparently, that makes me a horrible person in the eyes of some of those in the British Isles, to the point of them feel justified to attack my religious beliefs - beliefs that I did not express at all in this thread.

I think that many of you have a very perverted concept of what's fair and what's not.

I think this is a very good illustration of what I call "absolutism" - people who live by ideology instead of critical thought, people who are totally unable to question their own thinking because they are so thoroughly convinced of their righteousness. In the U.S., such people usually espouse conservative causes. In the British Isles, many of these absolutists profess a liberal ideology. Whether liberal or conservative, these absolutists are "true believers," totally unable to accept any thoughts other than their own.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:38 AM

Guest,# What happens if a Jewish or Islamic baker is requested by a Christian to make a pie the pastry of which contains bacon fat and milk with a few dashes of vodka.

Red herring. The customer in this case was not asking the baker to do anything that is against their religion.

Joe - I'll say it again - in this case, the plaintiffs had tried to force the baker to create something he didn't want to create.

And I will say it again as well. The judge did not believe that defence. I don't either. The baker discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation. Read the judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:36 AM

The thing is.. Marriage is open to all in most countries and Northern Ireland is required to respect that and not treat anybody differently to anybody else on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation.

By discriminating on sexual orientation, the bakery owners are in conflict with the law, which a judge has succinctly upheld.

Nothing to see here, just reason.

Opinions are just that. Opinions. A person who exhibits a superstition that precludes agreeing with equality is entitled to hold that opinion and I am entitled to equate them with dogshit. It's a free country in that respect.

But when I was in business, I couldn't judge my customers, suppliers or employees on grounds of the equality criteria and that was even before The Equality Act 2010. Despite what pete put above, the owners of the "Christian" B&B did lose, lost heavily and whilst an appeal lowered their financial hit, they remained guilty of discrimination. Rightly so.

It isn't about winners and losers Joe, it's about tolerance, respect and all the other bits religious people chant but don't practice. Perhaps, having read the instruction manual, you might remind us of the bit about not judging lest you be judged?

Meanwhile, as pete has reminded us of the bigoted guest house refusing a couple accommodation, we would love to hear a sermon regarding the bit about no room at the inn? You can get Keith to take the collection afterwards.

Notice by the way that my dear friend Musket said he recognises Keith's marriage whilst Keith keeps trotting out "many people" to hide his shame in his own opinion of others. If that's what going to church does to you, then let's rejoice as it were that congregations are dwindling, churches and chapels are closing and a relative of mine who will begin his curacy soon has been informed that he will be covering at least five parishes in his new career... He might need a helicopter before he retires.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:14 AM

And I wonder about something - if you find fault with another person's method of explaining his position (as so many of you have done with my similes) or if you have to redefine the other person's words instead of addressing what he actually said (e.g., Black Panthers vs. Black Power), could it be that you are actually unable to build a credible argument against what the other person is saying?

I'll say it again - in this case, the plaintiffs had tried to force the baker to create something he didn't want to create. This is quite different from renting a house, or buying an item in a store, or getting your plumbing fixed. And whether such coercion is legal or not, it's certainly not a good way to gain the baker's respect.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:02 AM

Ed, get your facts straight. "Black Power" was a slogan widely used in the black civil rights movement in the late 1960s and in the 1970s. It was used by many who did not espouse violence, not only by the Black Panthers. Nonetheless, many white Americans at the time considered the slogan to be threatening; and for that reason, many of us who were involved in the civil rights movement thought it unwise to use such a slogan.

The question is very similar to the attempt to force a baker to produce a cake with a slogan he didn't like. What I'm hearing from many of you is that if your cause is right, then you are right in using an aggressive approach to promote the cause. And while you may have that right, I question whether such an aggressive approach is effective. You may "win," but you may well lose ground in the process.

I'll use another simile, since so many of you appreciate my similes so much. It's like a peacemaker who works patiently and respectfully to build trust and work out a compromise with an opponent. Just as the agreement is to be signed, a horde of righteous warriors run over the hill and slaughter the lot of them. And since they won the battle, they claim the "moral high ground."

And the survivors arm themselves for battle, and any chance of a peaceful agreement is lost.

So, what is it that the "winners" won?

In my 66 years, I have learned many times that although I thought I was right in what I thought and said, other people had a valid perspective, too. And sometimes, I had to back down and admit I was wrong. Backing down and losing face is one of the hardest things in the world to do, but sometimes it is one of the most courageous and effective things a person can do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:46 AM

Thanks for your input, pfr, but you still haven't answered the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:26 AM

What if an anorexic baker said "I'm not selling you any cakes, you're too fat"

What if a baker refused to put blood in a cake for a Vampire customer ?

what if a baker refused to pick out all the bits of meat in a steak pie for a vegetarian ?

what if a nudist baker refused to put his pants on to serve the Queen ?

what if... oh bollocks, these 'what ifs' are just getting far too stupid ...

That christian baker is a bigot and no amount of ludicrous 'what ifs' make any difference,
or will ever help him to look any less bigoted by comparison...

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:20 AM

"Who the fuck would run for a job where it costs 100 million to get it so you can make 400 grand a year? That isn't a red flag to anybody?"

There's another of his, Ed T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:08 AM

""Eating a donut is easiest way to tell the world you don't give a fuck.""
Quote, Bill Burr

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:04 AM

God was so pleased with all the prayers that he sent Christians in the UK extra portions of cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 11:59 PM

What happens if a Jewish or Islamic baker is requested by a Christian to make a pie the pastry of which contains bacon fat and milk with a few dashes of vodka. They say no can do and the Christian customer gets offended. Where does that go under UK law when the Christian complains about being discriminated against?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:34 PM

Regarding lost bearings, were there legal issues on cake baking requests related to Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:17 PM

Wrong. Like fundamentalist "Islam"[sic] perhaps.

Would that include those countries that govern according to Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 10:02 PM

Methinks someone has missed the turn off to the Land of Point.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:52 PM

So, Joe, are you attempting to equate the revolutionary Black Panther movement with a loving marriage between two people of the same sex? Surely this was not your actual intent?

A love inspired message to a partner should logically be no more offensive to most compassionate folks, whether the persons were gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 09:26 PM

Yep, Ed, I DO get the point. In the US, merchants are required to serve blacks, gays, and even Episcopalians. They are not, however, required to produce merchandise with "Black Power" slogans.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:46 PM

The business owner is not the final arbiter of good taste, any more than you are or I am. That is a very poor defence, Joe. In this case, the business owner refused to make the cake because he is a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:43 PM

Joe O, As a USA citizen, I suspect you are aware of the historic role that litigation played in firming up the civil rights of blacks in USA society (including in being served by public business). From that experience, I suspect you can discover the answer to your question as to what is "the point".

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:30 PM

Ed T sez: It seems that the point of the legal matter flew right over your head, Joe O. Like with the hard fought civil rights cases in the USA on racial discrimination, the intent is definately not to convert those charged with discrimination nor like thinking folks.

OK, Ed, I'll bite: What is the point?

My point is that refusal to serve homosexuals would clearly be illegal in most Western nations. The refusal by a private business to create an object displaying a slogan the business owner considers distasteful? I think that's another matter.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:20 PM

e.g., like Islam (surely)

Wrong. Like fundamentalist "Islam"[sic] perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 08:01 PM

Yes, by all means, like many "traditional organized religions" - most of 'em have the extreme end, that do not escape the repressive definition, in one manner or another. Odd, how human intervention tends to skew the definitions of rather compassionate original messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 15 - 06:47 PM

repressive traditional religious cultures

e.g., like Islam (surely)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:58 PM

repressive traditional religious cultures

e.g., fundamentalist "Christianity"[sic]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:44 PM

Right on Fergie.

It is puzzling that logical thinking and compassion is limited when challenges to traditional views related to religion arises? One expects it to arise in some repressive traditional religious cultures. But, when it it is closer to home, it does challenge the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 15 - 05:16 PM

Absolutely spot on, Fergie.

Pete admittedly conjecture, ..but a probable scenario.   As others have said, and ashers also asserted, the discrimination was about the message, not the customer.

It is conjecture. It is a possible scenario, not probable. The judge agreed that it was discrimination against the customer. Read Fergie's post above. Read the ruling linked to or even skip right to the end where it says

Applying this reasoning, I find that the 1st Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for unlawful discrimination contrary to the provisions of the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order and cannot rely on the protection afforded by Art 9 of the Convention.

I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.   I would ask Counsel to address me on the issue of damages.

It is simple. It was judged to be discrimination and therefore it was. Unless another judge rules it was not there is no denying the fact and even then it could still be overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:56 PM

Keith, for fuck's sake read the Act, then you might stop talking shit.

Only if the Act was written by eminent, living historians who post to blogs on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 04:00 PM

"Is he any relation to Solomon?"

Old eagle eye you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Fergie
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:56 PM

A careful reading of the judges Judgement reveals the following:

Irrespective of your religious beliefs, it is unlawful for a company you control that supplies services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

If the required message on the cake was to have been in support of heterosexual marriage then the company would have supplied the goods.

Therefore the customer was discriminated against on the basis that he supported gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:53 PM

""So, in winning a lawsuit against the baker, did the plaintiff gain any supporters for the cause of gay marriage? And most specifically, did the plaintiff convert the baker into a supporter of gay marriage?""

It seems that the point of the legal matter flew right over your head, Joe O. Like with the hard fought civil rights cases in the USA on racial discrimination, the intent is definately not to convert those charged with discrimination nor like thinking folks.


""A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime because you can always go elsewhere""

It seem that I heard that type of reasoning before, in earlier years related to blacks in the USA and elswhere. Odd to see it today to justify what was clear legal decision on a publically-operated business discriminating against a person based in his sexual rientation (btw, legal decisions in most nations are not merely based on a judges personal opinion on a matter).

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:38 PM

Ya know a cake with weed in it could really improve sales I think

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:37 PM

Cousins I think. I don't know, twinkies would work for a wedding. I love twinkies, goes back to my college days.. And weed

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:35 PM

Is he any relation to Solomon?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:23 PM

"Me? I think the baker should have just offered to sell a blank cake and a decorating kit."

The wisdom of Soloman.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:22 PM

They are entitled to that view . . .

Not legally if they act on that view in the marketplace. They can believe anything they want. They just don't get to discriminate against others based on those beliefs. Keith, you also haven't answered the question about whether or not a business should be allowed to refuse service to black people. Put up or shut up, please. Where do you draw the line with discrimination?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:16 PM

They are not making campaign material. They are baking a cake. The only people who are going to see and/or eat the bloody thing are people who agree with its sentiment (which, let's remind ourselves, is hardly inflammatory, unless of course you're of a particular rather sad mindset). And of course they are entitled to their deluded opinion. Nobody said they weren't. But they are not entitled to act on that opinion to the detriment of decent people who wish to lead normal lives free of being discriminated against on account of the way they are made.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 PM

No I don't Greg but in this day and age the outcry of good people would put them out of business which I suspect would and should happen to the bakery

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 PM

Richard, does the Act really make it illegal for a baker to refuse to supply campaign materials just because they are in cake form?
If it does it is an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:08 PM

Who is disdaining gay marriage Greg?
Like many people, the bakers believe that marriage should remain only for people not closely related, conforming to the local age restriction and of opposite sex.
They are entitled to that view, and should not be forced by anti-discrimination law to produce campaign material for a cause they disavow.
They did not refuse to make and decorate a cake, only to turn it into a piece of propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:07 PM

Agreed, Greg. Or to refuse to admit women.

Keith, for fuck's sake read the Act, then you might stop talking shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:05 PM

It isn't against the law to discriminate against assholes. However there are other categories who it illegal to discriminate against.

If you are in business and providing a service to the public the law requires you to behave in a number of ways. One of them is not to discriminate on certain grounds. If that puts you in conflict with your personal beliefs you might find that difficult, but you should set those beliefs aside in order to comply with the law. If you find that too difficult, then you should find another way of earning a living.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 03:00 PM

A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime

Dan, I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but surely you don't actually believe it would be OK for a restaurant to refuse to serve black folks? Or white folks, for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:59 PM

ok.. I've stopped being serious... sort of...

what if... err.. what if a baker agreed to do the job but refused to accept the customer's desired artwork
for fear of contravening Sesame Street character ownership copyright.

Seriously, how much more farcial could the situation get
if the gay couple could now be remotely at risk of being sued by Sesame St !!!???😬

That's the trouble, problems can escalate when lawyers and media
start getting involved in a petty, but politically symbolic dispute......

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:58 PM

I likened my disdain for neo-Nazis to the disdain someone else might have for gay marriage.

There's a reason - or rather many reasons- to "disdain" Nazis. What's the excuse for "disdaining" gay marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:57 PM

"Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did."
And were found guilty of doing so - so it's a hypothetical statement
"but judges are fallible "
Especially when they come up with the 'wrong' decision
Accused people tend to tell lies.
"They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support."
Wi;dly inaccurate again
"Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, had wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the slogan Support Gay Marriage for a private function marking International Anti Homophobia Day."
"That is not discrimination."
Yes it is and it was found to be.
"Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade."
Taking customers orders is in whatever shape or form as long as it is within their capabilities and conforms to law and decency.
"Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis"
Yes he did
"The suggestion is pure malice."
No it isn't
"He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of,"
You are now putting words in his mouth to defend the indefensible - it was, at very best, an appalling choice of words, typical of homophic but certainly nothing I would have associated with Joe - before now.
"so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with."
They were not asked to produce campaign material, they were asked to bake a cake for a private function - the customer specified exactly what was wanted and they refused - simple as that.
The facts of the case state quite clearly that they refused the order because they disapproved of the customer's sexual orientation - the culprit admitted the same and was found guilty of discrimination for having done so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:56 PM

Are these Christians stupid? If they succeed in making it legal to discriminate on religious grounds, it will be perfectly legal (or at least logical) to discriminate against Christians. Why are they taking legal action without thinking the issue through to the next question that naturally occurs, and being appalled by the answer?

Joe, I admire you greatly, but you're wrong on this one. You are promoting legal discrimination. You haven't answered the question about whether or not businesses should be legally permitted to refuse service to black people. Where do you draw the line with discrimination?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 15 - 02:53 PM

The people in the cake shop may not like the notion of gay marriage, but they are wrong and the world is leaving them behind.

It is our opinion that they are wrong, but they are entitled to their opinion.
No-one can be forced to make campaign material for a cause they disavow.

Would you do it Steve?
Should you be criminalised for refusing?