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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:46 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Musket
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:43 AM

I like The US too Joe. In California, a similar law applies. We have free speech in The UK, just as you do. We don't allow incitement to hatred though, just as you don't.

We also treat religion differently to everything else and I am ashamed to say our law does allow aspects of bigotry when it is in the name of a recognised religion. That stain on our laws however does not go as far as allowing to treat people differently on the basis of sexual orientation, other than gay Church of England vicars cannot get married and Church of England premises cannot conduct marriage between gay couples.

Those two aspects are presently subject to test cases to be conducted under human rights criteria though, and the government, when passing the legislation knew that their compromise to get gay marriage passed has a shelf life.

There is no coercion in The UK. Just laws to protect people from discrimination.

Meanwhile, as two of your pilgrim father's come from very close to me, I notice that they left here not because they were being persecuted but because they weren't being allowed to persecute others. Bill Bryson wrote an interesting account of it...

Many Christians here moan that they are being persecuted when they are prevented from persecuting. If you want, I'll fund another Mayflower and you are welcome to the buggers.

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

Musket, you say a similar law applies here in California. I've lived here in California since 1973, and my employment and volunteer work has required me to be very familiar with the law. Pray tell, what law are you speaking about? As far as I know, there is no law that prohibits a person from speaking against gay marriage or requires a person to produce slogans supporting gay marriage.

I was rather upset that it took so long for California to allow gay marriage. I was sure the electorate would make California the first to approve gay marriage. Instead of that, the voters approved a referendum that prohibited gay marriage, and it was the courts that forced the state to allow gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is now approved by law in California, but citizens are still free to speak in opposition to it, and clergy are free to refuse to officiate at weddings they don't approve of.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:19 AM

I guess you could call me a "libertarian" on this subject. I strongly support the right of gay couples to marry. I also strongly support the right of others to refuse to support the idea of gay marriage.

The people I call "absolutists," both on the right and on the left, seem to think they have a right to control what other people say and do and think. I disagree.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:22 AM

Threads like this remind me how introverted and self-obsessed our species has become! The biosphere is dying folks. We've de-stabilised the climate and we're living through the greatest extinction event for 65 million years. The ice caps are melting and the oceans are acidifying and are full of our litter. Top-soils are eroding away, due to intensive agriculture, and many of our key 'bread baskets' are getting drier and drier. Meanwhile our populations continue grow out of control: all a recipe for a 'perfect storm'. Deadly conflicts rage in many parts of the world with resource depletion and climate change a possible cause in many of them; there's an increasing possibility that at least one of these conflicts could go nuclear.

And we obsess about a fucking cake!! Jesus!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:13 AM

We know that the baker is opposed to gay marriage.
You may hate him for that, but he is entitled to his view.

The baker was opposed to the slogan and would have refused to write it whoever asked, so he did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Had the gay customer asked for a different slogan, no problem.
Had a straight customer asked for that slogan, refusal.
No discrimination against any orientation, only against the slogan.

I think the baker was set up because of his faith.
Entrapment.
They asked for a slogan they knew he would refuse to make, and then accused him of discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:19 AM

Guardian 15 hours ago,

"A Christian walks into a Muslim sign writer's shop and orders a placard. He says it should carry a cartoon of the prophet and the slogan Muslims Go Home. The sign writer is deeply offended and says he cannot execute the order. The customer is outraged at the discrimination, is supported by the equality commission, sues, and the sign writer is fined £500 plus costs.

I think most people would find such a saga absurd. Why did the Christian not acknowledge a difference of opinion and go elsewhere for his placard? Yet that is the gist of the case this week against Mr and Mrs McArthur, owners of Ashers Baking Company in Belfast. They could not bring themselves to ice a cake with the slogan, Support Gay Marriage, which they strongly oppose and which is still illegal in Northern Ireland. It had been ordered by a gay rights activist, Gareth Lee, in honour of Northern Ireland's first gay mayor, Andrew Muir of North Down."

"The judge took the view that the refusal to write the slogan was direct discrimination against Lee's sexual orientation. The McArthurs denied this, retorting that they sell cakes to many gay people; it was the slogan that neither they nor their staff could write. They would have felt the same had Lee been heterosexual. The judge chose to disagree, saying in effect that their action was no different from a restaurant refusing to serve a black person. To my mind, a better parallel would be the Catholic Herald refusing to publish an anti-Catholic tirade."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:21 AM

I meant to highlight this,
"The judge took the view that the refusal to write the slogan was direct discrimination against Lee's sexual orientation. The McArthurs denied this, retorting that they sell cakes to many gay people; it was the slogan that neither they nor their staff could write. They would have felt the same had Lee been heterosexual. The judge chose to disagree,"

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:32 AM

...the attempt to force a baker to produce a cake with a slogan he didn't like

This is a tendentious misrepresentation of the transaction which casts the customer as aggressive and the cake shop as a potential victim. When I go into a shop to buy a pint of milk I am not setting out to force the chap to hand over the milk. I am intending (if I think about it at all) to be an equal participant in a hopefully amicable transaction. We have no reason to think that the chap who commissioned the cake was being any different. Had I described the shop's refusal to supply the cake as an attempt to force the customer to go elsewhere for his cake you would, quite rightly, have picked me up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:51 AM

He sells cakes to many gay customers.
He only refused to write the slogan, and would have refused whoever the customer.
No discrimination.
No crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:59 AM

The judge disagrees, Keith, and she is eminent, an expert and alive. I don't know if any of her works are in prominent display in Waterstones.

As to

Had the gay customer asked for a different slogan, no problem.
Had a straight customer asked for that slogan, refusal.

Neither of those things are what happened. No point speculating.