Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
otolith said:
Eric Mc said:
They weren't refusing to sell them a cake. They were refusing to put a particular slogan on it.
That doesn't make any difference to your argument that bigotry is fine because they could have gone elsewhere. Blacks, dogs and Irish could have gone elsewhere too. The service they offer is putting letters on a cake, not critiquing their meaning - I'm sure they'd have had no problem with a cake for the opening of the A Garage, Priory Stump. If they can put the letters on in that order, they can do it the other way.
They could have got the service elsewhere.
Blacks, dogs and Irish could have stayed elsewhere. Rosa Parks could have sat at the back. It's a facile argument for tolerating bigotry.
Eric Mc said:
The legal fine point that was emphasised in the news report I heard earlier is that it is perfectly legal for a shop to refuse to promote a cause they do not support PROVIDED they announce that stance in advance and it was publicised in a policy statment. This is where the bakery fell short.
There is a get-out for having a policy statement which says "We will not make cakes with slogans supporting gay (or black or Muslim or women's causes"? Or for having one which says "We will not make cakes with political slogans on them"?ofcorsa said:
Surely the Bakers choice to not support a political message is not discrimination.
If they had given the reason for refusal as "we do not put political slogans on cakes" that might have been ok. But that wasn't their reason. Their reason was "we won't do this particular political slogan as it goes against our religious beliefs".And their religious beliefs are discriminatory.
RobXjcoupe said:
Why would an organisation named queerspace knowingly go to a company with strong anti-gay views? Unless they were looking for a fight!
Also if everyone is equal why have a differential name to suggest otherwise and then push a business deal with a group with the opposite view?
Looks like a set up to me
Because if you (they) have strong anti-gay views, you (they) can probably expect someone to call you (them) on it sooner or later. It is 2016, not 1916.Also if everyone is equal why have a differential name to suggest otherwise and then push a business deal with a group with the opposite view?
Looks like a set up to me
I don't care if it was deliberate or not, I've enjoyed watching them bluff, bluster, squirm and finally lose. And then lose again.
These people need skewering.
(If you skewer a baker, does the skewer come out clean? Just a little bake-off joke there.)
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Possibly already mentioned on the thread but an interesting point just raised on LBC - presumably now when Coke let you put your own slogan on a can you can say "Pepsi" and when Nike let you add your own slogan to your trainers "made in a sweatshop" is absolutely fine now?
Where are all these irrational extrapolations coming from?We're talking about discrimination around protected characteristics i.e. ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. Not brands or copyrighted, protected marks.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Possibly already mentioned on the thread but an interesting point just raised on LBC - presumably now when Coke let you put your own slogan on a can you can say "Pepsi" and when Nike let you add your own slogan to your trainers "made in a sweatshop" is absolutely fine now?
I know there's a law about discriminating against homosexuals, but is there a law saying you can't discriminate against business rivals. I haven't heard of it. If the cake shop was asked to ice a cake with an advert for a rival cake shop, I'm sure they could have refused and not ended up in court. So it's a daft point.
MDMetal said:
How many bakeries say they refuse to print obscene words or depict a scene in icing sugar that is deemed offensive? I completely agree that refusing a service to someone based on that person's gender sexuality etc etc is wrong but clearly there will be a point where to refuse is right, I mean can you seriously ask the bakery to paint a rape scene in icing sugar and take them to court if they refuse on the basis the bakery hadn't laid out what they would and wouldn't do prior to that? As others have said the problem is you haven't cured intolerance you've just winked and told people to use another reason to deny the service "sorry we're too busy", "ah no that would be too complex a design sorry" yada yada. Not really progress is it? It's like taking down the signs for no Irish and Blacks but none of them can find a hotel bed as now everywhere is busy.. however everyone else sleeps better at night thinking they've fixed racism and intolerance.
As brain-farts go, this one is particularly smelly.TwigtheWonderkid said:
ofcorsa said:
Surely the Bakers choice to not support a political message is not discrimination.
If they had given the reason for refusal as "we do not put political slogans on cakes" that might have been ok. But that wasn't their reason. Their reason was "we won't do this particular political slogan as it goes against our religious beliefs".And their religious beliefs are discriminatory.
Eric Mc said:
Explain to me what discriminatory thing did they actually do.
From my reading of the case, it would appear that they admitted to their reason for refusing. If they had lied, using some of the wonderful array of 'what ifs' this thread has generated, then it is possible that they would not have been prosecuted or not been found guilty. As it is they were their own accusers it would appear.They seemed to think they had a trump card. It didn't work.
La Liga said:
Thorodin said:
In this instance the law is an aberration, penalising the majority for the satisfaction of a disproportionately vocal and influential minority. We should be able to make our own choices without those whose feelings are hurt being able to seek reactionary calculated revenge. The appeal succeeded because the law had been broken, there was always legal mileage in it, it really wasn't anywhere near as complicated as has been made out. But this law is repressive and can only push anti-homosexual activity further underground which is arguably worse than in the open and honest, where it can be identified.
Says who? Perhaps it'll help others change their beliefs to be more in line with 2016. Legislation has a lot of influence on the belief systems of specific cultures etc.
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And their religious beliefs are discriminatory.
And in line with the law in Northern Ireland. Gay marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland. What law did they break?ofcorsa said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ofcorsa said:
Surely the Bakers choice to not support a political message is not discrimination.
If they had given the reason for refusal as "we do not put political slogans on cakes" that might have been ok. But that wasn't their reason. Their reason was "we won't do this particular political slogan as it goes against our religious beliefs".And their religious beliefs are discriminatory.
RobinOakapple said:
La Liga said:
Thorodin said:
In this instance the law is an aberration, penalising the majority for the satisfaction of a disproportionately vocal and influential minority. We should be able to make our own choices without those whose feelings are hurt being able to seek reactionary calculated revenge. The appeal succeeded because the law had been broken, there was always legal mileage in it, it really wasn't anywhere near as complicated as has been made out. But this law is repressive and can only push anti-homosexual activity further underground which is arguably worse than in the open and honest, where it can be identified.
Says who? Perhaps it'll help others change their beliefs to be more in line with 2016. Legislation has a lot of influence on the belief systems of specific cultures etc.
Few people have the belief they should pay more tax, but if the government uses or creates legalisation to increase tax then beliefs change as it becomes the norm.
Eric Mc said:
Explain to me what discriminatory thing did they actually do.
Just swap 'Black Lives Matter' into everywhere you read 'Gay Marriage' and see if it sounds a little bit dodgy?Yes, we do cakes!
Yes, we do cakes with your message on them!
(Small print: we don't like black people, so don't ask us to put anything positive about that 'orrible bunch on any of our lovely cakes.)
Did they refuse because the customer was gay or because they didn't like the slogan?
Did they ask the person who walked into the shop if they were gay?
Did they say "We are not putting that slogan on the cake because you are gay"?
What if a heterosexual person walked into the same shop and asked for the same slogan on the same cake and they refused for the same reason?
Did they ask the person who walked into the shop if they were gay?
Did they say "We are not putting that slogan on the cake because you are gay"?
What if a heterosexual person walked into the same shop and asked for the same slogan on the same cake and they refused for the same reason?
La Liga said:
RobinOakapple said:
La Liga said:
Thorodin said:
In this instance the law is an aberration, penalising the majority for the satisfaction of a disproportionately vocal and influential minority. We should be able to make our own choices without those whose feelings are hurt being able to seek reactionary calculated revenge. The appeal succeeded because the law had been broken, there was always legal mileage in it, it really wasn't anywhere near as complicated as has been made out. But this law is repressive and can only push anti-homosexual activity further underground which is arguably worse than in the open and honest, where it can be identified.
Says who? Perhaps it'll help others change their beliefs to be more in line with 2016. Legislation has a lot of influence on the belief systems of specific cultures etc.
Few people have the belief they should pay more tax, but if the government uses or creates legalisation to increase tax then beliefs change as it becomes the norm.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff