Gay Cake Court Case

[Galloism]

Well, just based on the article itself, this assertion once again is incorrect (the facts of the case may bear out differently under legal review). It wasn't about the customer - it was about the product.

I find it hard to swallow that Bert the recently immigrated Illinois nazi is being discriminated against if a banner company refuses to make a banner supporting the deportation of all Jews. It's the message they would (legitimately, in that case) find offensive. Bert may be offensive too, but its not his offensiveness, personally, that results in the rejection.

Maybe they would like him enough to invite him into the nazi party? The nazi's had several prominent Jewish members.

Perhaps neonazi's want to put on a friendlier face.

Edit: probably stupid image to bring up, but no wrong intentions meant.

The image was hysterical.

If for no other reason than that dog was really white.

[Aequalitia]

We got sadly too much people in this society who thinks exactly like that.

Sadly? I think it's sad we have so much people in this society that find it morally acceptable to force people to do things against their will.

So, acceptation and equality is not important?

[Herskerstad]

Maybe they would like him enough to invite him into the nazi party? The nazi's had several prominent Jewish members.

Perhaps neonazi's want to put on a friendlier face.

Edit: probably stupid image to bring up, but no wrong intentions meant.

The image was hysterical.

If for no other reason than that dog was really white.

I'll TG you the show it is from, it's Norwegian, but you'll probably get enough to laugh.

[Aequalitia]

You just don't should discriminate people, no matter of you use religion as an excuse. Its the fault of the Christian bakery, because bigoty and nonsense religious 'reasons' who the bakery yells out with this case.

No, its of course the cause of the evil gays who are demons and want to dominate the world... (sarcasm).

Why shouldn't you be able to refuse making a political cake?

Because this case looks indeed political in some points, but in fact this isn't refusing making a cake for political reasons, but discriminating reasons.

[Gravlen]

Oh cut the verboise shit already and speak English. Assuming they just wanted a cake and didn't intentionally order from a Christian bakery , then why the fuck didn't they go to a different bakery after receiving their refund and instead went to this so called Equality Commission?

I am, and any lawyer worth their salt will also be interested in how far the individual in question went to find this bakery, how many other bakery they passed, and how quickly upon rejection they contacted the equality commission. I suspect fabricated outrage seeing how it is not just a request for a cake in a gay marriage, but one to exalt a political decision made in the nation.

None of which are relevant to the question of illegal discrimination. Even if they somehow knew this was a bakery with Christian owners, even if they passed several bakeries to get there, even if they contacted the EC the same day - Any lawyer worth their pepper can tell you that if the bakery is found to violate the law, these won't be counted as mitigating circumstances.

[Herrebrugh]

Why shouldn't you be able to refuse making a political cake?

Because this case looks indeed political in some points, but in fact this isn't refusing making a cake for political reasons, but discriminating reasons.

Why?

If I'd want a cake with "Workers of the world, Unite!" on it, and lots of hammers and sickles, I'd perfectly understand it if a capitalist wouldn't be keen of making it, and move on.

The problem here isn't that the people requesting the cake are gay (which is in such cases often the problem in United Statesia), it is that the cake has a political message the bakers don't agree with.

[Gravlen]

I'll take that bet.


They did.

Muir, the outgoing mayor of North Down and a gay member of the centrist Alliance party, said the Bert and Ernie cake was for an event he was hosting in the constituency in May. He said it was ordered to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May.

"Businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve," he said, adding that he would be supportive of legal action against the bakery.

"For Northern Ireland to prosper and overcome our divisions we need a new society where businesses are willing to cater for all, regardless of religious views, political opinion, disability, race, age, sexual orientation, marital status, gender and other backgrounds.

"I was pleased that another bakery, in Bangor, was able to step in and produce this cake for the event I hosted as mayor of North Down. We were able to ensure that this event went ahead, despite the actions of Ashers Bakery, and enjoyed a great afternoon celebrating the vibrant diversity Northern Ireland enjoys."

If you feel your rights have been violated, why wouldn't you take advantage of the legal avenues open to you?

You don't have the right to force people to do things they do not wish to do, business owners or not.

We're forcing people to do things they do not wish to every day. Businesses have to cater to black customers, have to hire qualified women, have to do business with jews, have to accept homosexual employees etc. etc. etc. This is nothing new.

[Herskerstad]

I am, and any lawyer worth their salt will also be interested in how far the individual in question went to find this bakery, how many other bakery they passed, and how quickly upon rejection they contacted the equality commission. I suspect fabricated outrage seeing how it is not just a request for a cake in a gay marriage, but one to exalt a political decision made in the nation.

None of which are relevant to the question of illegal discrimination. Even if they somehow knew this was a bakery with Christian owners, even if they passed several bakeries to get there, even if they contacted the EC the same day - Any lawyer worth their pepper can tell you that if the bakery is found to violate the law, these won't be counted as mitigating circumstances.

All of which would be relevant if it would go before a jury, because intent does matter. It would look bad if it would be presented by the timeline of the prosecution as a random act of discrimination, rather than if it should be the reality that it was carefully pre-planned to seek out and confront such in an attempt to force a person to act against their conscience. The whole 'would not service black people in conscience' argument is also a gigantic red-herring, as while a person can be forced to service another person even if it would be beyond their conscience to do so, they would not be forced to either celebrate or create a product that would glorify such. It is a question about product and producing, not about service as it seemingly stands now. For if a person is forced to create something that would glorify an opinion that goes contrary to their faith or personal preference, what would there be to stop someone to go to a lesbian owned design firm and demand that they would do the decorations for a party celebrating the imprisonment of LGBT activists in Africa?

[Aequalitia]

Because this case looks indeed political in some points, but in fact this isn't refusing making a cake for political reasons, but discriminating reasons.

Why?

If I'd want a cake with "Workers of the world, Unite!" on it, and lots of hammers and sickles, I'd perfectly understand it if a capitalist wouldn't be keen of making it, and move on.

The problem here isn't that the people requesting the cake are gay (which is in such cases often the problem in United Statesia), it is that the cake has a political message the bakers don't agree with.

A real capitalist would make still that cake, not because your message but just because the profit

Back on-topic.

I see what you try to say. But there is something spinning in my head then, does that make every non-straight person who want to have a wedding cake suddenly a political activist?

[Gravlen]

None of which are relevant to the question of illegal discrimination. Even if they somehow knew this was a bakery with Christian owners, even if they passed several bakeries to get there, even if they contacted the EC the same day - Any lawyer worth their pepper can tell you that if the bakery is found to violate the law, these won't be counted as mitigating circumstances.

All of which would be relevant if it would go before a jury, because intent does matter.

The intent of the person(s) violating the law matters. The intent of the law-abiding victim does not.

For if a person is forced to create something that would glorify an opinion that goes contrary to their faith or personal preference, what would there be to stop someone to go to a lesbian owned design firm and demand that they would do the decorations for a party celebrating the imprisonment of LGBT activists in Africa?

The fact that such a refusal wouldn't be based on grounds of sexual orientation.

[Herrebrugh]

Why?

If I'd want a cake with "Workers of the world, Unite!" on it, and lots of hammers and sickles, I'd perfectly understand it if a capitalist wouldn't be keen of making it, and move on.

The problem here isn't that the people requesting the cake are gay (which is in such cases often the problem in United Statesia), it is that the cake has a political message the bakers don't agree with.

A real capitalist would make still that cake, not because your message but just because the profit

Back on-topic.

I see what you try to say. But there is something spinning in my head then, does that make every non-straight person who want to have a wedding cake suddenly a political activist?

No. It makes people who want "...the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called 'Queerspace' " and "with a slogan supporting gay marriage" who also describe themselves as gay rights activists activists political activists, and their cake a political cake.

I don't mean to be rude, but it appears to me like you didn't read the OP.

[Aequalitia]

A real capitalist would make still that cake, not because your message but just because the profit

Back on-topic.

I see what you try to say. But there is something spinning in my head then, does that make every non-straight person who want to have a wedding cake suddenly a political activist?

No. It makes people who want "...the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called 'Queerspace' " and "with a slogan supporting gay marriage" who also describe themselves as gay rights activists activists political activists, and their cake a political cake.

I don't mean to be rude, but it appears to me like you didn't read the OP.

I did, and I understand that you see this as a political point and that the bakery looks like there refused to making the cake for political reasons.

If you refuse to make a cake for political reasons, its acceptable in cases, but I do wonder if the bakery did refuse it really because political reasons, or try to saying that just because there did refused it for discriminating reasons?

Don't understand me wrong, I understand you points totally.

[Herrebrugh]

No. It makes people who want "...the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called 'Queerspace' " and "with a slogan supporting gay marriage" who also describe themselves as gay rights activists activists political activists, and their cake a political cake.

I don't mean to be rude, but it appears to me like you didn't read the OP.

I did, and I understand that you see this as a political point and that the bakery looks like there refused to making the cake for political reasons.

If you refuse to make a cake for political reasons, its acceptable in cases, but I do wonder if the bakery did refuse it really because political reasons, or try to saying that just because there did refused it for discriminating reasons?

Don't understand me wrong, I understand you points totally.

There's no way to know if there are underlying reasons for the bakers to refuse making this cake. But I'm sure you can agree that, exactly because it is impossible for us to know that, the baker should have the benefit of the doubt in any case.

We should judge cases on that which is known, anyway. What we know now is that the baker refused to make what is clearly a political cake for political reasons, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Herskerstad]

The intent of the person(s) violating the law matters. The intent of the law-abiding victim does not.

If it was just about the pure legality sure, but the depositions and closing arguments during trials which have a jury certainly matters. I made no claim that it would somehow disqualify the legal substance of the case, but it would certainly not help a jury reach a conviction to their favor if it looks like an attempt of fabricating outrage and more importantly, it would look bad for a case which has been presented by some as discrimination when it would be in such a scenario be someone seeking trouble willingly.

For if a person is forced to create something that would glorify an opinion that goes contrary to their faith or personal preference, what would there be to stop someone to go to a lesbian owned design firm and demand that they would do the decorations for a party celebrating the imprisonment of LGBT activists in Africa?

The fact that such a refusal wouldn't be based on grounds of sexual orientation.

You will have to expand on that point in a way that incorporates UK laws to define it and I would be pleased if you would do me such a favor 'I know actually respect some digging efforts, but would understand if it would be a bit of a drag to do so'. If personal objections are enough to deny a product then the current case would not be in favor of the prosecution. If moral objections are enough to define it, then it cannot religiously discriminate against a person who would fear for his own, and the afterlife of others if he would be part of something which promoted such an action, not to mention the law would have to cherry-pick and define to a greater degree what is moral and what is not. If political objections are enough, then they should not have asked for him to make a cake portraying a political victory that he might disagree with.

Point being that there is so far nothing in this case that can conclude that the person requesting a product was denied because he was homosexual, but was denied because he requested a product the other person found ethically, morally and religiously reprehensible. So unless the state would start sanctioning what views are legally constituted as moral or not and add in judicial reformations to such, or a person would be forced to create a product they would not agree with on demand, I see no way that the law could punish the Christian baker and absolve the hypothetical lesbian design firm, though the latter hypothetical would not and punish both. As I see it and I suspect a jury would at the end of a trial, a person is being asked, not with any medical emergency, not with any dire significance to violate all he holds dear for the satisfaction of a customer who may or may not have been selecting him to both legally intimidate and cause him as much distress as possible.

The trial should be fun though.

[Aequalitia]

I did, and I understand that you see this as a political point and that the bakery looks like there refused to making the cake for political reasons.

If you refuse to make a cake for political reasons, its acceptable in cases, but I do wonder if the bakery did refuse it really because political reasons, or try to saying that just because there did refused it for discriminating reasons?

Don't understand me wrong, I understand you points totally.

There's no way to know if there are underlying reasons for the bakers to refuse making this cake. But I'm sure you can agree that, exactly because it is impossible for us to know that, the baker should have the benefit of the doubt in any case.

We should judge cases on that which is known, anyway. What we know now is that the baker refused to make what is clearly a political cake for political reasons, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I try to stay neutral in this case. We don't know even of political reasons was the real reason or not, but refusing to make a political cake isn't discrimination.

But I guess we never should really know what was the real reason. Sadly, but as we know now we should base our points on the facts we know now.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I don't understand why private entities, whether individuals or private businesses, should be forced to associate with, or serve, other private entities, or the state. Whatever happened to voluntary association?