Well, Steve, actually, I believe that it's quite probably true that the shopkeeper is bigoted against gay people. And I do indeed see the shopkeeper as the transgressor in this case, and the customer a victim. But I think the judge's decision impinged on the merchant's right to free speech, a right that apparently isn't quite as free in the UK as it is in the US. I have no doubt that the merchant is wrong - I just believe that in this situation, he should have a right to to be wrong. And I while have no sympathy for the merchant, I do not think that filing a lawsuit against him is an effective way of promoting the cause of gay marriage. Boycotts and bad publicity can be far more effective tools against bigoted merchants.

And no, the act of ordering the cake was not coercion. The act of obtaining a court judgment, however, was coercion. That's why people go to court - to coerce the other person to do something that person doesn't want to do. Sometimes it's necessary, but oftentimes it backfires. In my years as a government investigator, I have learned that if you sue another person, you're very unlikely to win that person over to your side, even if you win your lawsuit. I investigated a good number of discrimination complaints over the years. I often told the complainant that even though he had a valid complaint, he might be better off to seek a more conciliatory resolution to his conflict. If he won a grievance against his boss, he might have a hard time living with that boss in years to come.

And in conclusion, although I think the merchant is a bigot, a judgment ordering him to decorate a cake with a slogan he dislikes is an affront against the artistic freedom of all artists and craftsmen.

-Joe Offer-