|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And what would the damages be for breach of contract, pure and simple? Any extra cost involved in having a similar cake made and decorated by someone else. Damages for a breach of any anti-discrimination legislation would be another matter, but probably not much.
Some punitive damages above that are likely. It seems this particular locale may not have appropriate anti-discrimination legislation so one might not be able to sue under that. However depending on the locale a sizable number of people (gay or otherwise) might not be willing to give business to a bakery that is openly anti-same sex couples.
If they were OPENLY anti-same-sex, the woman would have known it and gone to another bakery. They should be forced to put a sign in their window saying "We will not bake cakes for..." and give a list of their hated people groups. Then you'd know not to shop there.
Aaaand we're right back to Jim Crow.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A lighter moment in the ridiculously stupid homophobic laws.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
A tad sad to watch, actually. None of those refused service seem to be bothered by the actual discrimination about gay people, only by the fact that, hey, ''They're not gay' or 'I've been married twenty-two years.' That's ok then, it's not fair that they should be denied service, never mind the next gay person who might. I saw that happen in a gay pub once: a bunch of thugs was waiting outside to have a bit of fun and all the straight folks who'd been drinking inside shot out screaming they weren't poofters.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was in the Hark to Bounty, Slaidburn one night, around 2010, and a drunken local millionaire farmer type in a group I had been peripherally interacting with made a remark in the hearing of one of the staff, referring to him in the third person as "... one o' them homey (sic) sexuals.". I said nothing at all. Didn't react. The young chap in question looked down and frowned. I wish to GOD I'd said, 'Really, me too, aren't you?'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
A tad sad to watch, actually. None of those refused service seem to be bothered by the actual discrimination about gay people, only by the fact that, hey, ''They're not gay' or 'I've been married twenty-two years.' That's ok then, it's not fair that they should be denied service, never mind the next gay person who might. I saw that happen in a gay pub once: a bunch of thugs was waiting outside to have a bit of fun and all the straight folks who'd been drinking inside shot out screaming they weren't poofters.
Well, I'm not proud of it, but if I were in fear of physical harm I might do the same. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
A tad sad to watch, actually. None of those refused service seem to be bothered by the actual discrimination about gay people,
IIRC, the pastor actually said that it is wrong to discriminate so. And one other person seemed to be worried about the general discrimination as well, though that might be projection on my part.
They also only showed short clips and likely only those reactions they thought entertaining. And received permission to use. Given that the majority of the people in the state do not support that law, it is likely they had more of the reaction you wished to see, but did not show them.
IMO, the sketch was a variation of the 'first they came for' done in a more relatable way.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Perhaps, LilBuddha, I certainly hope so; yet, if this were done about any other minority group (a la, we do not serve Jews, or Asians, or Muslims... pretty much any other) it would not be comedy, I can assure you.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Perhaps, LilBuddha, I certainly hope so; yet, if this were done about any other minority group (a la, we do not serve Jews, or Asians, or Muslims... pretty much any other) it would not be comedy, I can assure you.
But the point of the stunt was that this was legal behaviour in the state. It was explicitly made legal thanks to the "bathroom bill".
Discriminating on racial grounds is not legal in any state.
As to why the responses of the rejected customers were mostly "but I'm not gay" rather than "I just want to buy some food - I'm not proposing to have sex with it", I'm rather afraid that that's human nature for you. People tend to operate within the framework that has been created for them. Most people don't step back and point out that the framework is bloody stupid.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Perhaps, LilBuddha, I certainly hope so; yet, if this were done about any other minority group (a la, we do not serve Jews, or Asians, or Muslims... pretty much any other) it would not be comedy, I can assure you.
But the point of the stunt was that this was legal behaviour in the state. It was explicitly made legal thanks to the "bathroom bill".
Discriminating on racial grounds is not legal in any state.
As to why the responses of the rejected customers were mostly "but I'm not gay" rather than "I just want to buy some food - I'm not proposing to have sex with it", I'm rather afraid that that's human nature for you. People tend to operate within the framework that has been created for them. Most people don't step back and point out that the framework is bloody stupid.
I get that it's legal and they were having a go at HB2, but it's not funny precisely for that reason. If it were legal to discriminate against Jews, a sketch like this one would not be funny either: 'You Joos don't like these Gentile burgers anyways, you have more refined tastes, like kreplach and chopped liver, ha!' I don;t see the fun in 'You would not like these manly burgers anyways, homosexuals have more refined tastes like cilantro and penis' I'm not laughing, sorry.
[ 06. October 2016, 22:50: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I don;t see the fun in 'You would not like these manly burgers anyways, homosexuals have more refined tastes like cilantro and penis' I'm not laughing, sorry.
Fair enough.
To me it was trotting out a series of gay stereotypes - I'm surprised that there wasn't an interior decorator gag in there somewhere - to illustrate the absurdity of sexuality-based food vendors.
But there's a fine line between "we all agree that this is a silly stereotype, and we're laughing at the idea that all X people are like Y" and "ha ha ha - you're an X - you all like doing Y". I'm going to guess that most "Daily Show" viewers are pretty firmly in case A here, whereas most Fox News viewers might select door B.
(Your Jew gag doesn't work, because there's no stereotype that Jewish people are "refined" and neither chopped liver nor kreplach are in any sense "refined". You could probably do something with a "pound of flesh" Shylock gag or something about how the Jews own all the banks.)
[ 07. October 2016, 14:34: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
Except The Daily Show bit said absolutely nothing that I've not heard said by gay male friends. And they think it is funny.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
Except The Daily Show bit said absolutely nothing that I've not heard said by gay male friends. And they think it is funny.
It matters a great deal who says it. Young black men can call each other "nigga." I cannot call them that. (And that's okay.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
Except The Daily Show bit said absolutely nothing that I've not heard said by gay male friends. And they think it is funny.
It matters a great deal who says it. Young black men can call each other "nigga." I cannot call them that. (And that's okay.)
I agree, with notes.* But my point was that not everyone agrees that the stereotypes are automatically not funny.
But The Daily Show, IMO, was using the stereotypes to heighten the absurdity, a common technique in comedy. And a way to demonstrate how ridiculous the law is.
*It is possible to use stereotypes for humour across categories as well as within. But you should really be certain the participants all agree.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Actually, it is not a bad idea to ascertain attitudes towards that type of humour within homogeneous groups as well as not everyone will agree there either.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
Except The Daily Show bit said absolutely nothing that I've not heard said by gay male friends. And they think it is funny.
It matters a great deal who says it. Young black men can call each other "nigga." I cannot call them that. (And that's okay.)
Yup, and not on national telly. I call another gay vicar friend of mine 'sista', but God help anyone else who tries it on us, it'll be physical.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'Trotting out a list of stereotypes,' yep, you nailed it, not funny at all.
Except The Daily Show bit said absolutely nothing that I've not heard said by gay male friends. And they think it is funny.
Yes, man (I think), but not on TV for other people to laugh at us... definitely not with us. The whole thing would have been painful but tolerable if gay women or men had been in the van selling food. As it was, it did not make me laugh. I'm not mortified, mind, but I maintain that no TV channel would dare make fun of any other minority group like that, or make light of the laws that bother them.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Especially if they add jazz hands, or a lisp, a mince or sh!t like that.
[ 10. October 2016, 07:44: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Actually, those two in the truck; Jordan Klepper(white) and Roy Woods Jr.(black) do the same thing with racial stereotypes. Given the Daily Show's history, ISTM they are playing the edge to make a point. And the closer you get to any border, the more likely opinions will be divided. But the point is to make you think. That is the heart of the Daily show.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Maybe I don't see that because I don't see the need to think about it, and for this I think I ought to apologise and thank all the people who stand with us. Sometimes I get prickly, I find it difficult to help myself. It's not hugely Christian.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm sure most have already heard but the Northern Irish bakery case appeal was thrown out at the High Court yesterday.
I thought that Peter Tatchell was interesting on this. He says:
quote:
I profoundly disagree with Asher’s opposition to same-sex love and marriage, and support protests against them. They claim to be Christians and followers of Jesus. Yet he never once condemned homosexuality. Moreover, discrimination is not a Christian value. Ashers’ religious justifications are, to my mind, theologically unsound.
Nevertheless, on reflection, the court was wrong to penalise Ashers and I was wrong to endorse its decision.
This begs the question: Will gay bakers have to accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? I don’t think LGBT people should be forced to promote anti-gay messages.
The court judgement also leads me to ask: Should a Muslim printer be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed or a Jewish one a book that propagates Holocaust denial?
If the current Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes, print posters and emblazon mugs with bigoted messages.
I can't see that the discrimination law would force a gay baker to promote anti-gay messages, but it would be more difficult to show that a Jewish printer would be able to refuse to print Islamic texts.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
A tad sad to watch, actually. None of those refused service seem to be bothered by the actual discrimination about gay people, only by the fact that, hey, ''They're not gay' or 'I've been married twenty-two years.' That's ok then, it's not fair that they should be denied service, never mind the next gay person who might. ...
I may be indulging in a bit of confirmation bias here, but thought I did see some customers object ... and they were people of colour. And they didn't say, "I'm not gay", they said, "That's crazy."
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't see that the discrimination law would force a gay baker to promote anti-gay messages, but it would be more difficult to show that a Jewish printer would be able to refuse to print Islamic texts.
Anti-gay messages masquerading as religious speech (whether of the "God Hates Fags" variety, or quotations of certain passages from the KJV, say) would seem to be in the same category as the message on the cake in the Ashers case (whilst being a nasty bigot isn't a protected class, religious faith is, so it's hard to see how anti-gay messages phrased as statements of religious faith wouldn't qualify).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
being a nasty bigot isn't a protected class, religious faith is, so it's hard to see how anti-gay messages phrased as statements of religious faith wouldn't qualify
You say that's how the law works at the moment (in at least some countries). But is that how it should work ?
There's something to be said for giving people in business the freedon to serve a particular customer or not as they choose. And conversely there's something to be said for requiring those who advertise a product or service to make it available to anyone who offers the price in legal tender.
But who wants a system that gives some people but not others a legal right to be served ?
Whatever happened to equality under the law ?
If I made the laws, I'd have it that icing words onto a cake is a type of speech act, and give cake-icers the same right as printers and newspaper lettercolumns to not publish stuff they don't want to publish.
But that they can't legally refuse to sell cakes to anyone. Possibly with a list of recognised exceptions. If a publican can and should refuse to serve alcohol to someone who's dangerously near the point of being so intoxicated as to be not responsible for their actions, maybe the baker can and should refuse to sell a calorie-laden cake to someone in real and present danger of obesity ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Russ, I can't in the least tell from your tone which parts of your post are meant seriously and which sarcastically.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...There's something to be said for giving people in business the freedon to serve a particular customer or not as they choose. And conversely there's something to be said for requiring those who advertise a product or service to make it available to anyone who offers the price in legal tender.
But who wants a system that gives some people but not others a legal right to be served ?...
You're right, nobody wants a system based on abject confusion between people and services. A Catholic doesn't have a right to hire a hit man to wipe out heretics. A Catholic can't barge into a Jewish deli and demand communion wafers and angels on horseback. That doesn't mean that those services are being denied because the customer is Catholic; that same Catholic can buy any of tasty treats the deli sells, and anybody of any religion who hires a hit man for any reason is committing a crime.
Thus, anyone should be able to get a "Congratulations, Adam and Steve" cake. Depending on where you live, a "Die, faggots, die!" cake may be illegal no matter who orders it.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If I made the laws, I'd have it that icing words onto a cake is a type of speech act, and give cake-icers the same right as printers and newspaper lettercolumns to not publish stuff they don't want to publish.
Just out of curiosity, how much freedom do you think typesetters at a newspaper should have to refuse to set type for the articles they disagree with before they get fired by the publisher?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
nobody wants a system based on abject confusion between people and services...
...Thus, anyone should be able to get a "Congratulations, Adam and Steve" cake.
Agree the principle, not sure of the example.
The baker can choose not to offer the service of a "Congratulations" cake, but if he offers that service then he shouldn't deny it to anyone, even if he disapproves of what the purchaser is seeking to congratulate someone on.
If he'll do "Adam & Steve" for a twins birthday cake then he shouldn't refuse "Adam & Steve" for a gay couple.
But he's allowed to refuse to do a "Fucking awesome" cake, or any other message, provided that refusal applies to everyone.
If his bakery business gets big enough to take on staff, then the choice of what services are offered remains with the business owner rather than the employee. If you take the job, you ice what you're told to ice - that's part of the job description.
Just like a typesetter. Editorial control is a management function.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
PS: Mousethief, I try not to do sarcasm. But I'm into tongue-in-cheek examples to make a serious point.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Thus, anyone should be able to get a "Congratulations, Adam and Steve" cake. Depending on where you live, a "Die, faggots, die!" cake may be illegal no matter who orders it.
But what about a cake reading Lev 20:13? It's hard to argue that that's not religious speech.
The logic in the Ashers case was that the bakery discriminated against the customer on grounds of sexual orientation by refusing to bake a "support gay marriage" cake. The fact that the specific customer in this case was gay isn't material.
quote:
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.”
It seems to me that, following this logic, it is equally possible to require a gay baker who ices slogans on cakes to bake an "oppose gay marriage" or "Lev 20:13" cake. Or, alternatively, if you live in a place where a "God Hates Fags" placard is legal, then you can compel any signwriter to make them for you, however odious he finds that opinion.
quote:
“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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
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.
That's the principle as we had it above - that whatever message-bearing cakes are sold, that have to be available to all customers equally.
No problem with that.
quote:
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...
That's nonsense, and doesn't follow at all from the previous sentence. The bakery probably does good business out of first communion cakes with anodyne religious messages. This seems to be saying that if they once thus stray into the realm of religion they are then obliged to provide any message at all within that realm. Say "Jesus sucks". Or "Lucifer is Lord".
Given that this is Northern Ireland and that some religious messages have the potential to be hugely inflammatory, it would seem much better to give bakers (and signwriters and printers and publishers) the discretion to refuse particular messages. So long as they refuse them equally to all customers.
quote:
...in relation to sexual orientation.”
If it's wrong in general, I don't see how relating to sexual orientation suddenly makes it right.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
A baker could have a set menu of possible wording and decorations (e.g., names, "Congratulations!", "Happy Birthday", holidays). Then also sell DIY decorating kits (letters, various figurines, rainbows, etc.)
So anyone whose desired message isn't on the menu could order a frosted cake, and add on whatever message and accoutrements they want.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Given that this is Northern Ireland and that some religious messages have the potential to be hugely inflammatory, it would seem much better to give bakers (and signwriters and printers and publishers) the discretion to refuse particular messages. So long as they refuse them equally to all customers.
But now you're into the equivalent territory of forbidding both rich AND poor people from sleeping on park benches. In other words some messages are going to be more likely ordered by one group of people than another group -- very few straight couples are going to order wedding cakes with pro-gay sentiments. But you're saying as long as we prohibit both gays AND straights from ordering pro-gay cakes, then we're not discriminating.
And that's rubbish.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A baker could have a set menu of possible wording and decorations.
Reminds me of the old joke about the Jewish father who was given the task of selecting the wedding cake for his daughter. The guests were surprised to see "Happy Bar Mitzvah, Morris" written on the cake. "It was half price," explained the father.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
you're saying as long as we prohibit both gays AND straights from ordering pro-gay cakes, then we're not discriminating.
I'm not suggesting that the law prohibit any particular message or class of messages on a cake.
Labelling a particular message as being pro or anti some particular group isn't helpful. Those who believe that gay marriage is a blasphemy against their particular strain of Christianity could equally label the same message that you call "pro-gay" as "anti-Christian".
Either the State allows bakers (and signwriters etc) the discretion to choose which commissions to accept and which to decline. Or the State compels any baker offering this type of service to write whatever the customer asks for, regardless of how offensive or provocative it is. Or else the State takes sides and says that this religious/political opinion is Goodthink that no-one could have any reasonable objection to but that opinion is Badthink that anyone can object to.
And of the three choices, I prefer the one where there's discretion - a space between what's mandatory and what's forbidden. A State that sets a common neutral framework of rights that apply equally to everybody, providing a space in which people of all shades of opinion can strive to live a good life according to their own lights.
Clearly, anywhere where there is such discretion, it may be exercised against an opinion that you hold or that I hold. Such exercise of discretion is discrimination in ( ? the original ?)sense of the word. And it does indeed mean that unpopular opinions may find it harder to get professionally-aided circulation.
Ideas that society deems crackpot traditionally appeared on scruffy self-published pamphlets because professional publishers don't want to be associated with them. Technology is increasingly changing that.
I'm saying that such a process does not violate any person's rights (in the way that a shop that refused to serve particular people would).
Opinions do not have human rights.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Okay so what if Adam and Steve just order the cake without any verbage at all. Just a beautiful wedding cake. They even have the little plastic identical groomsmen at home that they're going to pop on it just before the reception.
But the baker hears through the grape vine that this is for a "gay wedding." And refuses the commission. Because to bake a cake for the "gay wedding" would be promoting sin.
Is that okay?
Now say this is the only bakery capable of doing a wedding cake in a 100 mile radius. Is it still okay?
At what point does your nouveau Jim Crow become unacceptable?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Especially if he baked an undecorated cake for a hetero couple whom he **knew** had been "living in sin" beforehand and were unrepentant of it?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If it's wrong in general, I don't see how relating to sexual orientation suddenly makes it right.
Sexual orientation is one of the protected classes in discrimination law (along with age, marital status, gender identity, pregnancy, disability, race/ethnic/national origin, religion and sex.
You are free to discriminate against people with small hands and bad hair, if it floats your boat.
It should be obvious why each of the protected characteristics appears on the list, while others don't.
[ 03. November 2016, 01:40: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If it's wrong in general, I don't see how relating to sexual orientation suddenly makes it right.
(And to clarify, politics in general is not a protected characteristic. You are free to discriminate against right-wingers, or against left-wingers. You are free to refuse to bake a "ban fox-hunting cake" or an "allow fox-hunting cake".
But when the political opinion relates to a protected characteristic (race, religion, sexuality etc.) then this ruling says that you may not refuse the business.
[ 03. November 2016, 01:44: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the baker hears through the grape vine that this is for a "gay wedding." And refuses the commission. Because to bake a cake for the "gay wedding" would be promoting sin.
Is that okay?
I'm saying no, that's not OK. If as a public business you offer goods for sale you have to sell them to anyone who comes up with the cash. You can't discriminate against people. But you can choose what goods you offer.
In this scheme of things, an atheist baker doesn't have to offer cakes with text referring to First Communion. But can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to someone who says she wants it for a first communion.
Seems a straightforward enough distinction to me.
And services in general are no different from goods in this respect. A house painter shouldn't refuse to paint anyone's house because of who they are. But he can refuse to paint a house pink if he doesn't want to offer that service.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If it's wrong in general, I don't see how relating to sexual orientation suddenly makes it right.
Sexual orientation is one of the protected classes in discrimination law (along with age, marital status, gender identity, pregnancy, disability, race/ethnic/national origin, religion and sex.
You are free to discriminate against people with small hands and bad hair, if it floats your boat.
I believe you that that is how the law currently stands. I'm saying that it shouldn't.
If it's morally wrong to refuse service to a gay man because you don't like the way he walks, why is it morally OK to refuse service to someone with bad hair because you don't like the way he looks ?
If popular culture took a strange twist such that people with small hands were looked down on, to the extent that the consensus of sociologists was that they had become the new disadvantaged group, would you not be prepared to add them to your protected list ?
So why wait for it to happen ? Why not give every individual up front the same legal right to be served that you would be prepared to grant them if you thought they belonged to a group that collectively needed it ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
Pssst...I think LC's comment about bad hair and small hands is a reference to US presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Might not make any difference to your argument.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm not sure this whole topic is quite as simple as some are suggesting. It may indeed be moral - if not legal - to discriminate when selling based on race or religion.
An Orthodox Jewish boy stops at an icecream van wanting to buy an icecream. The owner refuses because he is an Orthodox Jew.
Clearly that's discrimination based on the boy's religion, however it might be considered legitimate if we know that (a) the icecream seller is a friend of the boy's parents and (b) the icecream contains gelatine and (c) the icecream seller knows that the boy's parents are watching from the window and that both he and the boy are going to get into trouble if he sells the icecream.
So it seems to me that the way the question is phrased, and possibly the wider context, has a bearing on the acceptability of refusing to sell to someone - even when it is a decision based on religion.
I think there are some things that simply cannot be allowed to be discriminated based on religion or sexuality - which I'd include public services, monopoly service providers, banks etc.
But when we're getting down to small or family owned businesses which sell individual or designed items to individual consumers, that becomes very problematic. In England and Wales, a publican can refuse to sell beer to anyone at any time for any reason. He doesn't even have to give a reason for refusal of service.
It seems to me to be a difficult argument to assert that a person selling beer has this provision and yet a person selling cake does not. And it further seems to be something built on shaky ground when someone can refuse to sell based on the cleanliness clothing someone is wearing but not based on the moral position that they hold.
As far as I can see, in the majority of cases the law should keep out of decisions about who sells what to whom. If a baker or anyone else is suspected or known to be discriminating against gay people, the proper way to deal with it appears to me to be for those who object to attempt a boycott.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How many justifications can we give for Jim Crow? I stopped counting.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
An Orthodox Jewish boy stops at an icecream van wanting to buy an icecream. The owner refuses because he is an Orthodox Jew . . . [and] a friend of the boy's parents. <<snip>> In England and Wales, a publican can refuse to sell beer to anyone at any time for any reason. . . . It seems to me to be a difficult argument to assert that a person selling beer has this provision and yet a person selling cake does not.
You're not only comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing an intoxicating beverage to a confection.
OK, maybe the baker knows that the cake buyer is diabetic and would lapse into a coma if he ate even one sliver of the cake, but even so, his refusal would be couched along the lines of "Now Mr. Smith, you know you shouldn't be eating that!" rather than "We don't serve diabetics here!" Ditto for the Jewish boy.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In England and Wales, a publican can refuse to sell beer to anyone at any time for any reason. He doesn't even have to give a reason for refusal of service.
I don't believe this exempts him from the Equality Act.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't believe this exempts him from the Equality Act.
No, but it obviously depends on how it is done. In a recent case, a pub chain was fined because they refused to serve people from the Gypsy/Traveller community. But it seems that if the manager had simply said that he refused to serve them because they looked drunk - or just refused to serve them without giving a reason - there wouldn't have been a case.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it seems that if the manager had simply said that he refused to serve them because they looked drunk - or just refused to serve them without giving a reason - there wouldn't have been a case.
Yes - because there wouldn't have been any proof that he was discriminating on grounds of ethnicity. In that case, and in the Ashers case, the shop made it clear why they were discriminating. If the cake shop was just "all booked up" when a gay couple came calling, that's harder to prove.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Yes - because there wouldn't have been any proof that he was discriminating on grounds of ethnicity. In that case, and in the Ashers case, the shop made it clear why they were discriminating. If the cake shop was just "all booked up" when a gay couple came calling, that's harder to prove.
Or presumably if they'd said a reason that isn't listed in the discrimination law - I can't make that cake because I never make cakes for people with your shoe size. I suppose it'd have then been about whether the baker was really discriminating based on sexuality rather than shoe size.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose it'd have then been about whether the baker was really discriminating based on sexuality rather than shoe size.
Right - and then you need the same kind of evidence that you need to convict landlords whose properties are magically unavailable when a black couple comes looking. Convictions have been obtained, but they take more work.
(You'd probably need to send in a series of straight and gay cake purchasers with similar sized feet...)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
