Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Nanook said:
popeyewhite said:
No homosexuals were discriminated against. The Bakers refused a pro-gay marriage slogan. I don't really see anything wrong with not publicising an advert you don't like. On another note, are we still allowed to ask for Black Forest Gateau?
All homosexuals were discriminated against.Are you suggesting that black forest gateau is racist because of the word black?
New contender for the dumbest post in this thread if you are!
Patently the posted doesn't believe black forest gateau is racist but instead, fears it will be deemed racist, in the same way as ba ba black sheep or whiteboard were supposedly outlawed by some for fear of offence
You've kind of proven the point if you believe that all gay people were discriminated against by the bakery's action.
Incidentally, do we know how the gay community as a whole, by & large feel about what the bakery did ? I imagine many may actually support the bakery's right to print what they feel comfortable with
Nanook said:
All homosexuals were discriminated against.
No, they were not. A slogan was refused, not the right of the gay couple to buy a cake. If anything I'll accept a gay rights organisation may have been discriminated against. But ALL homosexuals? Pull the other one... .Nanook said:
Are you suggesting that black forest gateau is racist because of the word black?
Didn't you understand the tone of my comment?Nanook said:
New contender for the dumbest post in this thread if you are!
It'll be right behind your entry for dumbest reply if you didn't understand what I meant!Here's a moral question regarding the right of refusal for a business.
We were approached by someone this year wanting us to sell their Rolf harris painting. We act as an agent or auctioneer and take a %age comission
It was bought by the current owner for a substantial sum in 2004
RH was convicted in c. 2014
Under ARR (i can explain if anyone really wants to know), RH is entitled to 4% of the sales proceeds as a royalty for living (or recently deceased) artists. To be clear, this was painted in the '80s, RH doesn't own it, but by law he must receive the royalty if it's sold in teh secondary market
Forget for a moment the right thing to do morally, because by definition that's incredibly subjective. Should we have the right to refuse, either because we are uncomfortable being involved, or because we fear negative publicity for our firm
We accepted in the end, we sold the piece, we received some abusive contact from those who thought we should not have accepted the work and our online auction 'host' refused to host the sale because they thought it unsavoury.
My point being that it should be our decision as a business what work we take on. My example is not about discrimination, but it gets back to why I think so many feel upset, namely that the bakery proved they were happy to employ and work for openly gay people but felt their business should be free to decide what custom work they took on without relying on some kind of get out clause sign on their wall. Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
We were approached by someone this year wanting us to sell their Rolf harris painting. We act as an agent or auctioneer and take a %age comission
It was bought by the current owner for a substantial sum in 2004
RH was convicted in c. 2014
Under ARR (i can explain if anyone really wants to know), RH is entitled to 4% of the sales proceeds as a royalty for living (or recently deceased) artists. To be clear, this was painted in the '80s, RH doesn't own it, but by law he must receive the royalty if it's sold in teh secondary market
Forget for a moment the right thing to do morally, because by definition that's incredibly subjective. Should we have the right to refuse, either because we are uncomfortable being involved, or because we fear negative publicity for our firm
We accepted in the end, we sold the piece, we received some abusive contact from those who thought we should not have accepted the work and our online auction 'host' refused to host the sale because they thought it unsavoury.
My point being that it should be our decision as a business what work we take on. My example is not about discrimination, but it gets back to why I think so many feel upset, namely that the bakery proved they were happy to employ and work for openly gay people but felt their business should be free to decide what custom work they took on without relying on some kind of get out clause sign on their wall. Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
jonby said:
Here's a moral question regarding the right of refusal for a business.
We were approached by someone this year wanting us to sell their Rolf harris painting. We act as an agent or auctioneer and take a %age comission
It was bought by the current owner for a substantial sum in 2004
RH was convicted in c. 2014
Under ARR (i can explain if anyone really wants to know), RH is entitled to 4% of the sales proceeds as a royalty for living (or recently deceased) artists. To be clear, this was painted in the '80s, RH doesn't own it, but by law he must receive the royalty if it's sold in teh secondary market
Forget for a moment the right thing to do morally, because by definition that's incredibly subjective. Should we have the right to refuse, either because we are uncomfortable being involved, or because we fear negative publicity for our firm
We accepted in the end, we sold the piece, we received some abusive contact from those who thought we should not have accepted the work and our online auction 'host' refused to host the sale because they thought it unsavoury.
My point being that it should be our decision as a business what work we take on. My example is not about discrimination, but it gets back to why I think so many feel upset, namely that the bakery proved they were happy to employ and work for openly gay people but felt their business should be free to decide what custom work they took on without relying on some kind of get out clause sign on their wall. Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
I agree.We were approached by someone this year wanting us to sell their Rolf harris painting. We act as an agent or auctioneer and take a %age comission
It was bought by the current owner for a substantial sum in 2004
RH was convicted in c. 2014
Under ARR (i can explain if anyone really wants to know), RH is entitled to 4% of the sales proceeds as a royalty for living (or recently deceased) artists. To be clear, this was painted in the '80s, RH doesn't own it, but by law he must receive the royalty if it's sold in teh secondary market
Forget for a moment the right thing to do morally, because by definition that's incredibly subjective. Should we have the right to refuse, either because we are uncomfortable being involved, or because we fear negative publicity for our firm
We accepted in the end, we sold the piece, we received some abusive contact from those who thought we should not have accepted the work and our online auction 'host' refused to host the sale because they thought it unsavoury.
My point being that it should be our decision as a business what work we take on. My example is not about discrimination, but it gets back to why I think so many feel upset, namely that the bakery proved they were happy to employ and work for openly gay people but felt their business should be free to decide what custom work they took on without relying on some kind of get out clause sign on their wall. Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
grumbledoak said:
jonby said:
Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
It ought to be, but it isn't.So if you are ever asked to make any pro- gay marriage cakes say "Yes", then don't do it and say you forgot.
Do we want a world where people behave decently towards their fellow human beings, or one where we are taught how to avoid being prosecuted for behaving poorly towards them ?
Nanook said:
grumbledoak said:
jonby said:
Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
It ought to be, but it isn't.So if you are ever asked to make any pro- gay marriage cakes say "Yes", then don't do it and say you forgot.
jonby said:
My point being that it should be our decision as a business what work we take on. My example is not about discrimination, but it gets back to why I think so many feel upset, namely that the bakery proved they were happy to employ and work for openly gay people but felt their business should be free to decide what custom work they took on without relying on some kind of get out clause sign on their wall. Is it not common sense that a business should be free to refuse custom work for whatever reason it wants ?
However, a business has to make 'reasonable adjustments', which hopefully adds a degree of common sense, rather than opening a gaping loophole, and which balances the rights of the customer with the needs of the business.
I'm not sure how you'd apply such a balancing caveat here, but it's probably not impossible.
otolith said:
jonby said:
It's never been f*****g on to refuse to serve a customer because they are black. Or because they gay for that matter
How about refusing to make a wedding cake with mixed race names or figurines on it? That OK?But if I believe (as I do) in a businesses right to refuse custom work, providing it;s not because of who the customer is rather than what they want, I have to say it should be legally allowed. However I'm not entirely comfortable with my answer as I find it unsavoury and I think yours is a thought provoking question
But the strength of my tone in answering the question was because it was about refusing a customer on the basis of their colour or sexual orientation. Which few if any on here would disagree with. Your hypothetical scenario is both different and, difficult to envisage ever actually happening, unless it was because the customer is of a specific colour, which goes back to the original question.
It's an example where the shop is willing to serve the customer but not to give them what is essentially the same product as everyone else bar a change which would be of no consequence to them were it not for their prejudices. "We're not racist, we will sell cakes to anyone, but we won't do one for a mixed marriage because we think blacks and whites should stick to their own kind". It's interesting that you can't envisage that situation happening - I'm only in my forties, but I remember when that sort of attitude was rife.
ATG said:
To those who think the bakers should have been free to refuse to make this cake, how would you re-draught the law to both protect homosexuals from discrimination while also allowing the bakers to refuse to make the cake?
I would remove political and campaigning/lobbying material from the legislation. That's what they asked to baker to bake - a campaign cake not a birthday cake.otolith said:
It's an example where the shop is willing to serve the customer but not to give them what is essentially the same product as everyone else bar a change which would be of no consequence to them were it not for their prejudices. "We're not racist, we will sell cakes to anyone, but we won't do one for a mixed marriage because we think blacks and whites should stick to their own kind". It's interesting that you can't envisage that situation happening - I'm only in my forties, but I remember when that sort of attitude was rife.
Except it wasn't a product or any old cake it was bespoke hand made.V6Pushfit said:
otolith said:
It's an example where the shop is willing to serve the customer but not to give them what is essentially the same product as everyone else bar a change which would be of no consequence to them were it not for their prejudices. "We're not racist, we will sell cakes to anyone, but we won't do one for a mixed marriage because we think blacks and whites should stick to their own kind". It's interesting that you can't envisage that situation happening - I'm only in my forties, but I remember when that sort of attitude was rife.
Except it wasn't a product or any old cake it was bespoke hand made.otolith said:
Eric Mc said:
Mario149 said:
IMO, frankly yes. If you run a business, you leave your sky fairy beliefs/rabid atheism/whatever at home and act like a grown up and be bloody professional at your job. If putting a completely legal political slogan on a cake that in no way represents your views or requires your support offends you enough that you won't do it, you've got some big issues in your life, you shouldn't be running a business and should probably instead be seeking psychological help.
So, professional leave ethics at home when they go to work?I'd better reread my Ethics Manual from the ACCA then. I must have missed that bit
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff