Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay Cake Controversy!

Options
1…123124125126128

Comments

  • Options
    #3812
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,771 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833


  • Options
    #3813
    Ultrflat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Ultrflat


    Cake Gate :D


  • Options
    #3814
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ultrflat wrote: »
    Cake Gate :D

    Cake Gayte :p


  • Options
    #3815
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Overheal wrote: »
    They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.
    Nitpick: They were a cis couple - as in, they were both cis. Their complaint was that they were discriminated against not because they were cis, but because they were gay.

    Were they discriminated against for being gay? Possibly. Or possibly not.

    The complainants took the view, not unnaturally, that they had been discriminated against for being a same-sex couple. Had they not been gay, they would not have been seeking to buy a same-sex wedding cake, so the refusal to provide the cake they wanted was intrinsically linked to their sexual orientation.

    Masterpiece's reply was no, they were happy to sell cakes to gay people and did so all the time, and in particular were happy to sell cakes to this couple (and had offered to do so). What they were not happy to do was to sell a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. They wouldn't sell such a cake to any customer, gay or straight - so a straight person, for example, wanting to buy such a cake as a present would also have been refused.

    Their argument, in essence, was that they did not object to the sexual orientation of the customer, but to the nature of the cake. They argued that their cakes were creative works of art, and it's already established in US law that artistic freedom is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. So, they argued, they couldn't be compelled to create a work of art expressing a view which they didn't wish to express. They pointed to a previous case in which three bakeries had refused to bake a cake with the slogan "Homosexuality is a detestable sin —Leviticus 18:22". The customer complained that he held this view because he was Christian, and that the refusal of the bakeries to provide the cake was therefore discrimination against him because he was Christian. The bakeries were held to be entitled to refuse to supply the cake.

    They did not succeed with that argument before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or in the Colorado Court Appeal. However they did succeed in the Supreme Court — but not with this argument. The Supreme Court set aside the Civil Rights Commission's decision because they considered that its approach to the case, and the ruling it handed down, had displayed overt hostility to religion, towards which it was constitutionally required to be neutral. Its lack of neutrality vitiated its ruling.

    Because Masterpiece won on this ground, their "cake-baking is protected free speech" argument didn't have to be considered, and wasn't ruled on. So perhaps it's not entirely astonishing that we now have another case raising the same issues; someone wants to get the Supreme Court to consider and rule on that argument.


  • Options
    #3816
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

    being an arsehole is not a protected class.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3817
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Arseholes - the last victimised minority!


  • Options
    #3818
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The right to practice a religion is protected, right up until the point at which that religion tells you to discriminate against others, then it is no longer protected.

    Religion not being able to discriminate against others is not discrimination against that religion.


  • Options
    #3819
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Arseholes - the last victimised minority!

    First they came for the arseholes ...


  • Options
    #3820
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,771 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    robinph wrote: »
    The right to practice a religion is protected, right up until the point at which that religion tells you to discriminate against others, then it is no longer protected.

    Religion not being able to discriminate against others is not discrimination against that religion.

    Going back to the start, the cake shop refused to put a political message on the cake, and the courts found in their favour. At the time same sex marriage was not legislated for in the North, and the political message was promoting a change to this legal/political status quo.

    Now that Westminster has gone over the heads of Stormont and made same sex marriage legal, every bakery has to provide wedding cakes for all couples. But they still do not have to accept orders for cakes with political slogans, if they are against the political message. Same way that publishers will not accept Trump's book, because of the political views of the owners and/or workers.


  • Options
    #3821
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    being an arsehole is not a protected class.

    If I go into Hala meat shop, can I insist they go out the back, find a chicken still running around, and shoot it dead, no Bismillah prayer, no blades etc.

    Does the local Islamic butcher have to provide me this service? Or can he tell me to find another butcher?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3822
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ForestFire wrote: »
    If I go into Hala meat shop, can I insist they go out the back, find a chicken still running around, and shoot it dead, no Bismillah prayer, no blades etc.

    Does the local Islamic butcher have to provide me this service? Or can he tell me to find another butcher?

    why don't you give it a go and let us know how you get on.


  • Options
    #3823
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,090 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Nitpick: They were a cis couple - as in, they were both cis. Their complaint was that they were discriminated against not because they were cis, but because they were gay.

    Were they discriminated against for being gay? Possibly. Or possibly not.

    The complainants took the view, not unnaturally, that they had been discriminated against for being a same-sex couple. Had they not been gay, they would not have been seeking to buy a same-sex wedding cake, so the refusal to provide the cake they wanted was intrinsically linked to their sexual orientation.

    Masterpiece's reply was no, they were happy to sell cakes to gay people and did so all the time, and in particular were happy to sell cakes to this couple (and had offered to do so). What they were not happy to do was to sell a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. They wouldn't sell such a cake to any customer, gay or straight - so a straight person, for example, wanting to buy such a cake as a present would also have been refused.

    Their argument, in essence, was that they did not object to the sexual orientation of the customer, but to the nature of the cake. They argued that their cakes were creative works of art, and it's already established in US law that artistic freedom is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. So, they argued, they couldn't be compelled to create a work of art expressing a view which they didn't wish to express. They pointed to a previous case in which three bakeries had refused to bake a cake with the slogan "Homosexuality is a detestable sin —Leviticus 18:22". The customer complained that he held this view because he was Christian, and that the refusal of the bakeries to provide the cake was therefore discrimination against him because he was Christian. The bakeries were held to be entitled to refuse to supply the cake.

    They did not succeed with that argument before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or in the Colorado Court Appeal. However they did succeed in the Supreme Court — but not with this argument. The Supreme Court set aside the Civil Rights Commission's decision because they considered that its approach to the case, and the ruling it handed down, had displayed overt hostility to religion, towards which it was constitutionally required to be neutral. Its lack of neutrality vitiated its ruling.

    Because Masterpiece won on this ground, their "cake-baking is protected free speech" argument didn't have to be considered, and wasn't ruled on. So perhaps it's not entirely astonishing that we now have another case raising the same issues; someone wants to get the Supreme Court to consider and rule on that argument.

    Getting back to the NI case here the bit in bold was exactly what won it for Ashers in the British Supreme Court.

    Ashers were not baking a cake with the slogan in support of gay marriage for anyone, regardless of who asked for it, thus they were not discriminating against a gay person.


  • Options
    #3824
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833
    Discrimination is only prohibited when it is done against certain protected characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability and majority age. That's the British and Irish position anyway, I assume this applies to the United States.

    Lack of talent, or even megalomania, is not a protected characteristic, so discrimination on that basis is above board.


  • Options
    #3825
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    OSI wrote: »
    They do not have to provide you with that service because it's not one they provide. If however you go in and ask for a product/service they do provide and they refuse to provide it to you specifically because you are gay/catholic/female etc, then that is discrimination and they are in the wrong.

    How is this stuff so difficult to grasp :confused:

    But they did not refuse to supply this couple with any multitude of cakes buns and products they normally supply to everyone else.

    What they refused was to supply a product, that they would not supply to any customer that requested it.

    "It's not one they provide"...just like you said!

    It was the product they refused to make, not refusing to sever this couple.

    Is that difficult to understand?


  • Options
    #3826
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,771 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Discrimination is only prohibited when it is done against certain protected characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability and majority age. That's the British and Irish position anyway, I assume this applies to the United States.

    Lack of talent, or even megalomania, is not a protected characteristic, so discrimination on that basis is above board.

    If Donald was gay, he could claim that he was being discriminated against for that reason. But it would be a spurious claim. That was the gist of the case in the North. A gay activist asking for a political message on a cake, made the spurious claim that the refusal was because he was gay.


  • Options
    #3827
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ForestFire wrote: »
    It was the product they refused to make, not refusing to sever this couple.

    Is that difficult to understand?
    The question the court would have to ask there is whether this isn't de facto illegal discrimination. Nobody is ever going to buy a gay-wedding cake except, guess what, in relation to a gay wedding. If those are the only wedding cakes a shop refuses to provide, then there is certainly discrimination on the basis of civil status, whether illegal or not.

    It's more complicated than people are letting on, on both sides.

    Consider this alternative example. In the United States, school segregation was often executed on a de facto basis, simply because blacks and whites lived in segregated districts, so all the white kids went to one school and all of the black kids went to another. Politiicians could (implusibly) deny that the school systems were segregated, because a policy that kids must attend their local school is nominally sensible, and the segregation was therefore only de facto.

    Here, the shop can claim they are only adhering to a policy, and it's unfortunate that the only people negatively impacted are gay. Is such de facto discrimination illegal at all? Can you rely on a political belief to de facto discriminate? I do not know.


  • Options
    #3828
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,484 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

    I think you misunderstand book publishing.

    In book publishing, the publishers take on the printing and distribution costs to earn a % of the book sales along with the author.

    If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).

    Often you will see publishers withdraw books due to author behavior.


  • Options
    #3829
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    astrofool wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand book publishing.

    In book publishing, the publishers take on the printing and distribution costs to earn a % of the book sales along with the author.

    If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).

    Often you will see publishers withdraw books due to author behavior.

    why would they not be able to refuse? On what grounds would the request be protected?


  • Options
    #3830
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,484 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why would they not be able to refuse? On what grounds would the request be protected?

    What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to, but nor would they be seen to support the contents of the book).


  • Options
    #3831
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    astrofool wrote: »
    What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to,
    What are you basing the boldened statement on? There must be some specific legal provision that you think prohibits a publisher from printing something which they find disagreeable?

    I don't know what law you're referring to, but as a general rule in liberal democracies, people are free to do whatever they want, unless the law intervenes. How does the law intervene to force a publisher to produce material with which they disagree/ dislike?

    You can't illegally discriminate against people under a small number of protected characteristics, but that doesn't mean you can never discriminate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3832
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,484 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What are you basing the boldened statement on? There must be some specific legal provision that you think prohibits a publisher from printing something which they find disagreeable?

    I don't know what law you're referring to, but as a general rule in liberal democracies, people are free to do whatever they want, unless the law intervenes. How does the law intervene to force a publisher to produce material with which they disagree/ dislike?

    You can't illegally discriminate against people under a small number of protected characteristics, but that doesn't mean you can never discriminate.

    Are you getting confused between a publisher and a print shop? On your post, I completely agree.

    If someone wanted to get a "gay page" printed by a photocopy shop (which the consumer was paying for), the shop wouldn't be able to discriminate against them.


  • Options
    #3833
    Gwynplaine
    Registered Users Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭Gwynplaine


    Does the cake turn you gay?


  • Options
    #3834
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    astrofool wrote: »
    What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to, but nor would they be seen to support the contents of the book).

    very simple. Why would the printer not be able to refuse? Anybody can refuse business from people they don't want to do business once they don't fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.


  • Options
    #3835
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Jesus christ is this STILL being debated? How f*cking retarded [retarded as in the more modern definition of the word, nothing to do with those with disabilities but anyone with a ridiculous level of stupidity - words evolve too people, get used to it - gay originally meant cheery/carefree remember] are people..?? Were the couple refused service because they were gay? NO, THAT would have been discrimination. They were refused service because the owners did not wish to print the message on the cake as it was against their beliefs. THAT IS NOT F*CKING DISCRIMINATION! Jesus christ is there any actual limit to human stupidity.. .. .. ..


  • Options
    #3836
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,883 ✭✭✭Christy42


    jaxxx wrote: »
    Jesus christ is this STILL being debated? How f*cking retarded [retarded as in the more modern definition of the word, nothing to do with those with disabilities but anyone with a ridiculous level of stupidity - words evolve too people, get used to it - gay originally meant cheery/carefree remember] are people..?? Were the couple refused service because they were gay? NO, THAT would have been discrimination. They were refused service because the owners did not wish to print the message on the cake as it was against their beliefs. THAT IS NOT F*CKING DISCRIMINATION! Jesus christ is there any actual limit to human stupidity.. .. .. ..

    And would it be discrimination if they didn't want to put to non White people cake toppers on top? Again they could say they would ban anyone from asking for it when they know damn well that the reason for denying it would be the race of the people the cake is for.


  • Options
    #3837
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,484 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    very simple. Why would the printer not be able to refuse? Anybody can refuse business from people they don't want to do business once they don't fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.

    While people seem to be getting tetchy, my point was that, based on the anti-discrimination laws, a printer can't refuse business but that there is a difference between a publisher and a printer, if I wrote a book with gay content, I can't force the church to publish it for me, I can however expect that any printing and manufacturing business wouldn't be able to discriminate against me and not print it if I pay the price to do so.


  • Options
    #3838
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Christy42 wrote: »
    And would it be discrimination if they didn't want to put to non White people cake toppers on top? Again they could say they would ban anyone from asking for it when they know damn well that the reason for denying it would be the race of the people the cake is for.


    Jesus f*cking christ it was a STATEMENT, NOT A DEPICTION OF SOMEONE! F*cking hell..... Forcing someone to believe in something just because you believe it is called fascism! People are entitled to believe differently, regardless of what you think! The only thing that matters is that they're not treated any differently!


  • Options
    #3839
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    astrofool wrote: »
    While people seem to be getting tetchy, my point was that, based on the anti-discrimination laws, a printer can't refuse business but that there is a difference between a publisher and a printer, if I wrote a book with gay content, I can't force the church to publish it for me, I can however expect that any printing and manufacturing business wouldn't be able to discriminate against me and not print it if I pay the price to do so.

    nobody is getting tetchy. and you have changed the question you asked. this is what you asked and what i responded to. you are quite wrong. they could refuse. Being an arsehole is not protected by discrimination laws.
    If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).


  • Options
    #3840
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,484 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    nobody is getting tetchy. and you have changed the question you asked. this is what you asked and what i responded to. you are quite wrong. they could refuse. Being an arsehole is not protected by discrimination laws.

    My point was they couldn't discriminate against him (e.g. we don't print books written by white people), as you say, they can refuse business with him because he's an asshat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3841
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    astrofool wrote: »
    My point was they couldn't discriminate against him (e.g. we don't print books written by white people), as you say, they can refuse business with him because he's an asshat.

    you made your point very poorly so considering you said
    they wouldn't be able to refuse


Advertisement