Gay Cake Controversy!

7aubzxk43m2sni

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I would be neither surprised nor offended if this particular baker refused to make me a tri-colour cake with "Up the Provos" and little paramilitary figures on it. (I'm assuming here, of course, that a fundamental Christian baker in Belfast would be absolutely opposed to my beliefs.)

While I agree with this idea, the response I've gotten to it is that LGBT people are a protected minority, while IRA supporters are not.

Feisar

Aren't shops ran on the "Invitation to treat" premise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

Can't the shop just say: "sorry not interested in doing business with you" and that's it?

Peregrinus

Feisar wrote: »

Aren't shops ran on the "Invitation to treat" premise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

Can't the shop just say: "sorry not interested in doing business with you" and that's it?

Generally, yes, unless his doing so amounts to discrimination on one of the prohibited grounds.

So, "Sorry, we don't serve Jews here" is not going to pass muster.

Peregrinus

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

While I agree with this idea, the response I've gotten to it is that LGBT people are a protected minority, while IRA supporters are not.

IRA supporters are a protected minority in NI, where it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of political opinion.

NinetyTwoTeam

I think gay people should be treated equally and the bakery is wrong for refusing, but I also don't think any person should be legally forced to produce something they don't agree with. Especially a handmade thing. what's next, forcing painters to paint pictures they don't want to paint?

If they were antigun and refused to make a gun cake they would probably be lauded. And I am not a gun guy or anything.

Actually that would be kinda interesting, place an order for a gun cake and see will they make it.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no - the merchants problem is not that the customer is gay - they would not even know how many of their customers are gay. The problem is they want to be able to offer custom messages on cakes unless the message is gay, and that is illegal discrimination.

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The purpose of the present proceedings in the UK Supreme Court is to determine whether this particular discrimination is illegal. They may yet conclude that it is not. And, if they do, their conclusion will be authoritative.

The purpose of this thread, perhaps, is for us to discuss whether it ought to be illegal, regardless of whether it actually is or not.

The way you frame this issue, the baker is not discriminating between customers, but between messages. They wouldn't make a "support marriage equality!" cake for anyone, gay or straight. And (we don't know this, but let's assume) they would make a "support traditional marriage!" cake for anyone, gay or straight.

Obviously, there's no discrimination here between the customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. But what there is is maybe two kinds of discrimination:

1. As you say, there's discrimination between the messages and, it follows, between the ideas, values, etc that the messages encapsulate or express.

2. There's (indirect) discrimination between the groups of people who have in interest in the messages, or who are affected by the ideas, values, etc that the messages express. My refusal to say "support marriage equality!" disparages the community that is disadvantaged by the denial of marriage equality.

As to the first kind of discrimination, we're generally very leery about criminalising discrimination between ideas as such. That really does cut across, in a very dramatic way, rights of free speech, political opinion, religious freedom, etc, etc.

I think it's really the second kind that bothers us. We already have laws that prohibit or penalise particular kinds of hate speech or offensive speech on the grounds that such speech adversely impacts on groups identified by gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. So what we are doing here is extending that to apply also to a refusal to engage in particular kinds of speech where that refusal adversely impacts on such groups.

If that analysis is correct, then people who generally object to hate speech laws, and hold that there is a right to give offence, are likely also to object to penalising someone like the Ashers. But people who think hate speech laws are right and necessary in an egalitarian and diverse society will also agree that it is right to penalise the Ashers.

pleas advice

Peregrinus wrote: »

We already have laws that prohibit or penalise particular kinds of hate speech or offensive speech on the grounds that such speech adversely impacts on groups identified by gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. ....

also the grounds specific to Northern Ireland, which neither the prosecution, or defence, seem to have brought up, as far as I am aware, discrimination due to political views / affiliation.

I'm actually surprised at the way both sides have approached this case, given (my admittedly limited knowledge of) the laws specifically applicable in NI

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. There's (indirect) discrimination between the groups of people who have in interest in the messages, or who are affected by the ideas, values, etc that the messages express.

This is clearly the basis of the rulings so far. It is ridiculous on the face of it to say the bakery is not discriminating because they would not sell a "Support Gay Marriage!" cake to their heterosexual neighbour either. This is like saying that they are not discriminating against nationalists by refusing to ice cakes in Irish, because Loyalists also cannot order cakes as gaeilge, or that refusing to put a mixed race couple on a cake is not discrimination because white couples also cannot have a mixed race couple on their cakes.


I do not think that the opposition to calling this discrimination is coming from free speech advocates (although that seems to be the basis for a lot of the commentary in America on their gay cakes). Here it seems to be mostly from people who think the bakery peoples religious views are important - that icing gay cakes is against their religion so they should get a bye.



Hence all the people bringing up Jewish bakeries and Muslim bakeries.

Peregrinus

Possibly so, but if there's a free speech argument here it doesn't fail if the speech, or the motivation for the speech, happens to be religious. If the free speech/freedom of political activity argument holds good, religious people don't need a bye, because the freedom of speech/political freedom is protected regardless of its religious content.

Which is why people concerned about free speech should be interested in this case. If the Supreme Court holds that Asher's position is protected because of its religious dimension, the implication is that a non-religious person can be compelled to express views which they do not hold, if refusing to express them is seen to offend/disparage/disadvantage a protected class. (Indeed, that's also the implication if the SC holds that Asher's position is not protected, and they have to make the cake.) And that seems to me like a fairly major qualification to freedom of speech. Maybe it's a qualification that we accept as right and necessary, but shouldn't we at least think about it a bit?

Christy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

While I agree with this idea, the response I've gotten to it is that LGBT people are a protected minority, while IRA supporters are not.

IRA supporters are a protected minority in NI, where it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of political opinion.

Nationalists are protected. IRA supporters are not. You can be one without the other.

Peregrinus

Simply expressing support for the IRA (the UVF, etc) in NI is not, so far as I know, an offence. The opinion that "force is justified in the [insert political struggle of choice here]" is clearly a political opinion, and I don't see why it wouldn't be protected by a law that bans discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.

If you're providing material support for someone's armed struggle, that's a different matter. You'd be engaged in something which goes beyond merely holding an opinion, and you wouldn't be protected.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe it's a qualification that we accept as right and necessary, but shouldn't we at least think about it a bit?

I think we already thought about it, and unlike American free speech fundamentalists, we have already decided that it is not OK to defend discrimination by saying it is free speech.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're providing material support for someone's armed struggle, that's a different matter.

Is cake material support?

Peregrinus

If it's good cake, yes.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

A business is people, though. Businesses don't grow on trees, or descend fully-formed from the heavens; they are activities engaged in by people.

So, customers are people, and so are the traders, merchants, service providers, etc to whom they give their custom. I don't think we can argue that I have fundamental human rights which must be respected when I'm at one end of a sale-and-purchase transaction, but not when I'm at the other end of the same transaction.

So I don't think the answer you offer here is a very satisfactory one.

I think it's quite satisfactory.

A business is not one human being, usually. It normally comprises of a hierarchical structure of a variety of ppl who have all kinds of viewpoints whether religious or otherwise. In such a business who's viewpoints should take priority? The owners? The employees on the lower levels who do the donkey work? What if the viewpoints of each are completely at odds with each other.

I think the answer is not to consider a business as a whole as it were a human being with emotions are that are legally open to being offended and laws in place to protect them.

McArthrus say they are a Christian bakery. This statement seems to me to be a clever attempt to usurp equality laws. To me and I know nothing about laws in place to do with businesses that claim to have an ethos, but the only way they can claim to be a Christian bakery is if they make Christian cakes. I dunno, cakes in the shape of a cross or something. Otherwise there is no such thing to my mind as a Christian bakery. Do they employ only Christians btw? There's another issue for them if they claim they are a Christian bakery - would they reject a job application from a Muslim?

Graces7

AllForIt wrote: »

I think it's quite satisfactory.

A business is not one human being, usually. It normally comprises of a hierarchical structure of a variety of ppl who have all kinds of viewpoints whether religious or otherwise. In such a business who's viewpoints should take priority? The owners? The employees on the lower levels who do the donkey work? What if the viewpoints of each are completely at odds with each other.

I think the answer is not to consider a business as a whole as it were a human being with emotions are that are legally open to being offended and laws in place to protect them.

McArthrus say they are a Christian bakery. This statement seems to me to be a clever attempt to usurp equality laws. To me and I know nothing about laws in place to do with businesses that claim to have an ethos, but the only way they can claim to be a Christian bakery is if they make Christian cakes. I dunno, cakes in the shape of a cross or something. Otherwise there is no such thing to my mind as a Christian bakery. Do they employ only Christians btw? There's another issue for them if they claim they are a Christian bakery - would they reject a job application from a Muslim?

They run their lives AND their business as Christians, on those principles. Being a Christian is living your faith in all areas of your life.

skooterblue2

AllForIt wrote: »

Do they employ only Christians btw? There's another issue for them if they claim they are a Christian bakery - would they reject a job application from a Muslim?

I will tell you what ..... Go down to the Mosque and ask them "Do you accommodate gay roof top parties?". See where that gets you

DEFTLEFTHAND

Go and get gay cake in Gaza.

You'd be strung from a light fixture with your boxers around your ankles.


You think Christians are bad, they're not going to do anything to gays apart from praying for the salvation of their souls.

Christy42

skooterblue2 wrote: »

AllForIt wrote: »

Do they employ only Christians btw? There's another issue for them if they claim they are a Christian bakery - would they reject a job application from a Muslim?

I will tell you what ..... Go down to the Mosque and ask them "Do you accommodate gay roof top parties?". See where that gets you

How far do you expect to get asking for a straight roof top party? Unless it is somewhere I am really confused about the point you are making.

skooterblue2

Christy42 wrote: »

How far do you expect to get asking for a straight roof top party? Unless it is somewhere I am really confused about the point you are making.

ahhh sure, Gwan and get yourself down to Clonskeagh and ask them about their attitudes to gay cakes. Stop bashing the Christians

Taytoland

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Go and get gay cake in Gaza.

You'd be strung from a light fixture with your boxers around your ankles.


You think Christians are bad, they're not going to do anything to gays apart from praying for the salvation of their souls.

If they are lucky, they would just behead or shoot them.

skooterblue2

Taytoland wrote: »

If they are lucky, they would just behead or shoot them.

I think they are more into the gay roof top parties down at the mosques

Zubeneschamali

Graces7 wrote: »

Being a Christian is living your faith in all areas of your life.

No problem - they just have to have a policy of no political messages on cakes. No bride-and-groom figures or iced images either.

Zubeneschamali

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You think Christians are bad, they're not going to do anything to gays apart from praying for the salvation of their souls.

And discriminate against them illegally.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And discriminate against them illegally.

Deal with it, these people have their priciples.

You can't coerce them to make you a homosexual cake.


You can purchase a plain cake from them and then add the gay writing with icing yourself.

AllForIt

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Go and get gay cake in Gaza.

You'd be strung from a light fixture with your boxers around your ankles.


You think Christians are bad, they're not going to do anything to gays apart from praying for the salvation of their souls.

What an odd post.

Gay Cake, mmmmm yummy.

If you were paying attention this issue has noting to do with Christians per se.

And as far as you latter point is concerned Christians do a lot more than 'pray for my soul'. Just look at their influence in Uganda, zealot Christians who travel over there from the US of A in support of the barbaric policies they have there.

skooterblue2

AllForIt wrote: »

What an odd post.


If you were paying attention this issue has noting to do with Christians per se.

And as far as you latter point is concerned Christians do a lot more than 'pray for my soul'. Just look at their influence in Uganda, zealot Christians who travel over there from the US of A in support of the barbaric policies they have there.

God Bless us, Ugandans do you say? Africa has always clung to its native witch doctoring religions and just veneered over with Christianity for the sake of getting aid. My Aunt was over there on the missions and after 80 years they could not be taught simple things like dont wash, defecate and drink water in the same place. Bad example of Christianity.

Zubeneschamali

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You can purchase a plain cake from them and then add the gay writing with icing yourself.

Fine by me as long as they don't ice messages on any cakes for anyone. See how easy it is for them to stop illegally discriminating?

DeVore

the logic of "Well, we're not as bad as <insert the worst people here> , so we get a free pass"... just completely escapes me.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

I think it's quite satisfactory.

A business is not one human being, usually. It normally comprises of a hierarchical structure of a variety of ppl who have all kinds of viewpoints whether religious or otherwise. In such a business who's viewpoints should take priority? The owners? The employees on the lower levels who do the donkey work? What if the viewpoints of each are completely at odds with each other . . .

That's an interesting question, but the answer cannot possibly be "AllForIt" gets to decide the ethical principles that everyone in the business must abide by". Nor can it be "Parliament/the King/a telphone poll gets to decide them".

Your argument cuts both ways. Yes, Asher's Bakery is an organisation that involves a number of people, but remember that the cake was being ordered on behalf of QueerSpace, which is also an organisation that involves a number of people. If Asher's can't invoke human rights because they are a group of people, where does that leave QueerSpace?

So, no, I don't think your approach does work. You're offering a piss-weak version of human rights in which, as soon as we act collaboratively with others, we can no longer assert our human rights. I think we have to take rights more seriously than that.