nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When Authoritarians wave rainbow flags: The right to gay cake

Pete29

I'm sure many here will be familiar with the incident which occurred in Belfast in which a Christian baker was asked to produce a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. The baker was sued by the customer for discrimination and ultimately won his court case, with one judge ruling that to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage message for the customer, was not really a support of gay marriage, even though the producer of said cake did not agree with the concept.

I'm curious to know and discuss what other members here thought about the case.

I found the ruling troubling, as it shows that ones own right to their conscience, their religious beliefs, their property, their speech and their labor, can be overruled by the coercive power of the state.

The customer was politely told that it was Christian bakery and that producing such a cake, one endorsing gay marriage, was against his beliefs and declined to provide it.

Instead of approaching another bakery to make his cake, of which I'm sure there are many, he decided to sue the baker. The customer believed he had a right to this man's labor, that this baker should endorse and promote his beliefs, even if he did not wish too.

This gay rights activist was not simply trying to buy a cake anymore, he was out to make an example of this baker. To make the point that this will not stand. To say, if I offer you payment for a service, regardless of whether you like it or not, you will provide me with what I want and I will get the state to coerce you, or fine you, if you refused.

This is the first small step, on a long, slow creep towards a type of authoritarianism under a supreme doctrine of equality, which leaves people unequal in the ability to control their own lives.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ferrari3600

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Chips Lovell

It's important to distinguish that the law in question doesn't prohibit someone from holding particular beliefs, but rather prohibits them from using them as justification for discriminating against someone.

It isn't about removing people's ability to control their own lives. It's instead about removing their ability to control others' lives , by denying them goods, facilities or services on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Pete29

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It's important to distinguish that the law in question doesn't prohibit someone from holding particular beliefs, but rather prohibits them from using them as justification for discriminating against someone.

It isn't about removing people's ability to control their own lives. It's instead about removing their ability to control others' lives on, by denying them goods, facilities or services on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Your first paragraph is a distinction without a difference. If you owned a bakery and someone entered asking you to bake a cake with a swastika and the words "Jews are rats" would you bake it? If not, your discriminating against that person based on your beliefs.

To your second paragraph - He wasn't denied service because of his sexual orientation. He was denied service because the baker did not wish to promote or condone gay marriage.

Chips Lovell

There is no law in Northern Ireland (as far as I'm aware of) outlawing discrimination against anti-Semites or Nazis.

Pete29

Nor should there be, but you admit you wouldn't serve them? The question now is, why should you get to adhere to your beliefs and not the religious baker to his?

Chips Lovell

Because equality legislation is generally designed to afford legal protection to people who're frequently discriminated against and/or persecuted, whether its on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation etc.

Now if you think Nazis should fall in this category, fair enough, but you'd probably be in the minority on that one.

Akrasia

Pete29 wrote: »

Nor should there be, but you admit you wouldn't serve them? The question now is, why should you get to adhere to your beliefs and not the religious baker to his?

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to being a Nazi?

There are specified groups of people who are protected under the equality legislation. If the Bakery isn't prepared to follow the law, then they shouldn't trade.

Religious people are entitled to hold their personal religious beliefs, but not entitled to impose them on others.

What is your position on the 'Hobby Lobby' court case in America (where a large company is refusing to cover contraception under their employees health insurance because of the religious views of the owners)

Pete29

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Now if you think Nazis should fall in this category, fair enough, but you'd probably be in the minority on that one.

I just said in my previous post that should not happen. Did you miss that or are you intentionally trying to misrepresent my position?

In my view, shops and business should be free to serve or not serve anyone they don't wish to. That includes religious bakers who don't want to make cakes promoting gay marriage.

Most don't refuse to serve gays, women, blacks, etc because it would be bad for business because of potential boycotts and protests.

Your belief that the power of the state should be used to force a baker into serving one customer and not another is a fine example of the arbitrary nature of authoritarian ideologues.

Chips Lovell

This kind of legislation didn't come out of thin air. The reason it's on the statute books is because businesses historically weren't self-regulating as you describe and often did discriminate against gays, women, blacks, etc.

Pete29

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to being a Nazi?

No, I didn't. I used an analogy to highlight a very important principle. That principle being that if you have a small business, a bakery for example, and some one approaches you to avail of your services for some purpose that you have objections to, you should not have to provide that service. To force someone to work for another against their will, even if paid, is involuntary servitude aka slavery.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are specified groups of people who are protected under the equality legislation. If the Bakery isn't prepared to follow the law, then they shouldn't trade.

So if I don't want to provide a cake for a cause I don't support, you'll shut me down and cause me to lose my job and livelihood, even though I haven't hurt or coerced anyone?

Akrasia wrote: »

Religious people are entitled to hold their personal religious beliefs, but not entitled to impose them on others.

How did this baker force his beliefs on anyone? He simply refused to sell his labor for something he didn't agree with. That's not forcing anyone to do anything.

Akrasia wrote: »

What is your position on the 'Hobby Lobby' court case in America (where a large company is refusing to cover contraception under their employees health insurance because of the religious views of the owners)

Hobby Lobby employees are earning their insurance from their employer who is paying for it, if they think certain types of birth control are abortion and they don't agree with it, they don't have to pay for it. If hobby lobby employees don't like, they can look for another employer who will pay for certain types of birth control or pay for it out of their own pockets, or not have sex. Besides, there are other types of birth control, less restrictive, that Hobby Lobby were willing to pay for that they didn't consider abortion.

StupidLikeAFox

Pete29 wrote: »

So if I don't want to provide a cake for a cause I don't support, you'll shut me down and cause me to lose my job and livelihood, even though I haven't hurt or coerced anyone?

1. You quoted the judges ruling - they are of the opinion that baking the cake does not infringe on your right to hold certain beliefs.

2. You are completely allowed to turn away business as long as you are not discriminating based on sexual orientation. I don't know the full facts of the case and Im sure it is way beyond what you have summed up here. The fact is that they judge ruled it it was a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is what was illegal about it.

4. I personally think the customer should have just moved on to the next bakery. Its not exactly a Rosa Parks situation, but there you go

Pete29

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

1. You quoted the judges ruling - they are of the opinion that baking the cake does not infringe on your right to hold certain beliefs.

I agree, baking the cake doesn't infringe on your right to have certain beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is, given that a person has certain beliefs, is it fair, right, or just, to force them to provide a service which contradicts those beliefs. Is it just to force a baker who doesn't agree with gay marriage to bake a cake supporting gay marriage if they don't want to?

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

2. You are completely allowed to turn away business as long as you are not discriminating based on sexual orientation. I don't know the full facts of the case and Im sure it is way beyond what you have summed up here. The fact is that they judge ruled it it was a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is what was illegal about it.

I understand that that is the law currently, and I accept that in so far as that's the law put in place by elected representatives, but the baker himself said it wasn't because he was gay, it was because the cake promoted something he disagreed with. Even if it was because he was gay, it still his choice whether or not he wanted to serve him. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd join in a boycott of that business if they worked like that.

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I personally think the customer should have just moved on to the next bakery. Its not exactly a Rosa Parks situation, but there you go

I agree.

Pete29

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This kind of legislation didn't come out of thin air. The reason it's on the statute books is because businesses historically weren't self-regulating as you describe and often did discriminate against gays, women, blacks, etc.

Human history is a long period of time to be drawing from and they largely do. How often does a major discrimination case come in Ireland where someone was refused service? Besides, in a liberal democracy, any anti-discrimination legislation which can pass with a healthy majority shows that a society has largely abandoned the tendency to refuse people service because they're black, gay etc. In a society where the majority are prejudiced or bigots, such legislation is not possible.

oscarBravo

Pete29 wrote: »

...to provide a service which contradicts those beliefs.

I'm curious as to how baking a cake contradicts those beliefs.

The baker doesn't agree with gay marriage: fine, he has a right to hold that belief. Will baking the cake in any way impact on that belief? Will that belief be diluted or lessened in some way by the baking of the cake? Does he think that baking the cake will act as an endorsement of gay marriage on his part, and - even if it did - in what way does that harm him?

You're arguing, in effect, that people should have the freedom to discriminate against classes of people they believe to be undeserving in some way, on the grounds that the free market will punish them if necessary; with the unspoken corollary being that if the free market fails to punish them, then the discrimination is thereby justified.

The very existence of anti-discrimination legislation gives the lie to that notion.

pauliebdub

I think businesses should have the right to refuse business for example they may not consider fulfilling a particular order financially worthwhile so should be free to refuse it, but shouldn't have the right to refuse someone on the basis of gender sexuality etc. It's a tricky one, however I believe that these activists who pursue such cases sets back gay rights.

gallifreya

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row

Seems the refusal of service was found to be a refusal based on discrimination against sexual orientation.

QUOTE:

"In delivering their judgment, Morgan rejected the argument of lawyers for Daniel McArthur and his family that the bakery would have been endorsing gay marriage equality by baking the cake.
“The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either,” the lord chief justice said.
He said the legislation on equality in the region could not be changed to suit one particular religious or political group".

And further...

"On Ashers’ stance regarding the cake, Morgan said: “The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”

Mancomb Seepgood

I'm not sure if I'd see this as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.The bakery refused to bake a cake with a slogan if favour of a particular political cause (a cause which I agree with 100% btw). If they had refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on the other hand,that would be blatant discrimination and they would deserve the consequences.

Nonetheless,the judge didn't see it that way. And I think that the notion that the power of "consumer choice" is any safeguard preventing discrimination, what if the person being discriminated against belongs to an unpopular minority? Equality legislation is needed to protect all classes of people who might be the victims of discrimination and is essential.

Rightwing

What a disgrace.
If someone doesn't want to deal with the likes of homosexuals or travellers, they shouldn't be forced to. No wonder people don't respect the law.

Pete29

I'm curious as to how baking a cake contradicts those beliefs.

The baker doesn't agree with gay marriage: fine, he has a right to hold that belief. Will baking the cake in any way impact on that belief? Will that belief be diluted or lessened in some way by the baking of the cake? Does he think that baking the cake will act as an endorsement of gay marriage on his part, and - even if it did - in what way does that harm him?

It is not a question of whether the baking of the cake, or the message written on it, will impact or dilute the baker's beliefs, or physically or mentally harm the baker, but a question of whether or not the baker has the right to control his business and labor. If the baker is forced to produce a cake with a message on it, promoting a particular view, he or she does not agree with, the baker is therefore forced to do it against their own wishes. The question is, is this just?

I used this example previously: If you were a baker and someone requested you bake a cake with a message you did not agree with, should you be forced by the state to produce it? If you were asked to bake something for a group of white supremacists with the message "White Power" and a swastika, would you make it? If the answer is no, then you are accepting the fair and just principle that you are in control of your labor and you would not produce such a product. I am not comparing support for gay marriage to support for white supremacy here, it could be any message or idea you don't wish to promote or support. Your belief that racism is wrong is not diminished in the production of such a cake, but your right to not support such an idea, or group, through the control of your own labor and the dictates of your conscience, is preserved.

You're arguing, in effect, that people should have the freedom to discriminate against classes of people they believe to be undeserving in some way, on the grounds that the free market will punish them if necessary; with the unspoken corollary being that if the free market fails to punish them, then the discrimination is thereby justified.

Discrimination is not bad thing in the literal sense that it means to differentiate or distinguish between things. For example, to bake a birthday cake for a customer, and not bake a Nazi cake, is a form of discrimination between classes of people. People may refuse to provide a service for a wide variety of reasons. I didn't say the market would punish them if it was necessary. The market would punish them if there was an attitude within the society, and therefore the market, that found that kind of behavior reprehensible or unjust in sufficient numbers. If 99% of the baking industry and population thought the practice of refusing gays service was immoral, there would be sufficient pressure on that bakery to change it's practices, as there are plenty of other bakeries to choose from, and the population wouldn't support one that treated gays in such a way. Whereas if 1% of the baking industry and population engaged in a practice of refusing service to gays, then there would be no initiative to punish any bakery.

In the 1% case, there would also be no popular support for anti-discrimination laws, therefore discrimination would continue along the lines of the societies attitudes. If 99% percent of people, or a healthy super majority, which I would argue exists today, supported anti-discrimination laws, then you have a society in which the market conforms to the example in which there are plenty of other bakeries which would provide service, therefore punishing the smaller number of bakeries which would not.

I know 1% and 99% are outlying extremes, but I'm just using these examples to illustrate my argument. There would be a wide ranging variety across societies.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

What a disgrace.
If someone doesn't want to deal with the likes of homosexuals or travellers, they shouldn't be forced to. No wonder people don't respect the law.

So you should be free to discriminate as you please? Do you place any limit on it?

Brian?

Pete29 wrote: »

It is not a question of whether the baking of the cake, or the message written on it, will impact or dilute the baker's beliefs, or physically or mentally harm the baker, but a question of whether or not the baker has the right to control his business and labor. If the baker is forced to produce a cake with a message on it, promoting a particular view, he or she does not agree with, the baker is therefore forced to do it against their own wishes. The question is, is this just?

I used this example previously: If you were a baker and someone requested you bake a cake with a message you did not agree with, should you be forced by the state to produce it? If you were asked to bake something for a group of white supremacists with the message "White Power" and a swastika, would you make it? If the answer is no, then you are accepting the fair and just principle that you are in control of your labor and you would not produce such a product. I am not comparing support for gay marriage to support for white supremacy here, it could be any message or idea you don't wish to promote or support. Your belief that racism is wrong is not diminished in the production of such a cake, but your right to not support such an idea, or group, through the control of your own labor and the dictates of your conscience, is preserved.

Discrimination is not bad thing in the literal sense that it means to differentiate or distinguish between things. For example, to bake a birthday cake for a customer, and not bake a Nazi cake, is a form of discrimination between classes of people. People may refuse to provide a service for a wide variety of reasons. I didn't say the market would punish them if it was necessary. The market would punish them if there was an attitude within the society, and therefore the market, that found that kind of behavior reprehensible or unjust in sufficient numbers. If 99% of the baking industry and population thought the practice of refusing gays service was immoral, there would be sufficient pressure on that bakery to change it's practices, as there are plenty of other bakeries to choose from, and the population wouldn't support one that treated gays in such a way. Whereas if 1% of the baking industry and population engaged in a practice of refusing service to gays, then there would be no initiative to punish any bakery.

In the 1% case, there would also be no popular support for anti-discrimination laws, therefore discrimination would continue along the lines of the societies attitudes. If 99% percent of people, or a healthy super majority, which I would argue exists today, supported anti-discrimination laws, then you have a society in which the market conforms to the example in which there are plenty of other bakeries which would provide service, therefore punishing the smaller number of bakeries which would not.

I know 1% and 99% are outlying extremes, but I'm just using these examples to illustrate my argument. There would be a wide ranging variety across societies.

Your "Nazi cake" analogy holds zero water. People choose to hold political beliefs like national socialism. People do not choose to be gay, they just are gay.

Discrimination against someone because they were born a certain way is nonsensical.

Discrimination against a political idea is fair game really. If a capitalist baker refused to bake my annual Karl Marx face cake, so be it.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

So you should be free to discriminate as you please? Do you place any limit on it?

Of course. Everyone discriminates.

If you don't like the look of someone, you may move to a different seat.
You may not provide a service to an OAP because it's likely to be more trouble.
You may not consider a traveller for a particular job.
If you see an invalid in an interview, you don't give them the job.

Now, we don't broadcast the reason why of course.

So, if homosexuals came into me looking for a cake with their messages (hypothetically now, and I didn't like it), they might get one, it may not be edible and they wouldn't be coming in again.

Then one may take their business where they will get superior service.

Pete29

Your "Nazi cake" analogy holds zero water. People choose to hold political beliefs like national socialism. People do not choose to be gay, they just are gay.

It doesn't hold water if you take my analogy from the perspective from which you are interpreting it. A cake with a message supporting gay marriage is a political message, and by your reasoning, it's fair not to support that political message and not make that cake. Of course people don't choose to be gay, but that's irrelevant. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. Whether it's a political message, or you're gay, black, Muslim, Jewish, Amish, etc. If someone doesn't want to sell their labor to you, you have no right to demand it, no matter who you are. To be forced to provide your services against your will is involuntary servitude and involuntary servitude is slavery.

Discrimination against someone because they were born a certain way is nonsensical.

I agree, If I owned a bakery I would have no problem making a cake supporting gay marriage, but some people, a minority I would say, don't support gay marriage for whatever reason.

Confused mum84

Pete29 wrote: »

I'm sure many here will be familiar with the incident which occurred in Belfast in which a Christian baker was asked to produce a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage.

Does anybody know the exact wording that the customer wanted on the cake ?

Pete29

I believe it was 'Support Gay Marriage' with a picture of Bert and Ernie underneath.

charlie_says

Like many things in life one groups feelings trump another in this matter in the eyes of the law. Usually this is because one group is better at vocal representation of itself to politicians and the media, therefore they get their way. This is democratic but also one of the problems with democracy.

Didn't this actually turn out quite well for the baker in question as he received a high volumes of orders of similar cakes?

[Deleted User]

Pete29 wrote: »

I'm sure many here will be familiar with the incident which occurred in Belfast in which a Christian baker

The customer was politely told that it was Christian bakery ."

What exactly is a Christian Baker? Or a Christian bakery?

Rightwing

charlie_says wrote: »

Like many things in life one groups feelings trump another in this matter in the eyes of the law. Usually this is because one group is better at vocal representation of itself to politicians and the media, therefore they get their way. This is democratic but also one of the problems with democracy.

Didn't this actually turn out quite well for the baker in question as he received a high volumes of orders of similar cakes?

I'd say it's a case of someone trying to get a claim in the court. If you own a hotel and you see 30 travellers approaching, what do you do? Let the gentlemen in and they may or may not proceed to thrash the place or refuse them entry and take the hit in court? The cake is the same, hoping to get someone on principle and then pretend your feelings etc are shattered for life on grounds of discriimination.

Pete29

bubblypop wrote: »

What exactly is a Christian Baker? Or a Christian bakery?

A baker who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, I suspect.

[Deleted User]

Pete29 wrote: »

A baker who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, I suspect.

So a Baker, who in their own personal life happens to be Of The Christian religion?
Absolutely nothing to do with his work. No such job as a Christian Baker.