Gay Cake Row: How have we come to this point?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the ruling - you can't decide to refuse someone a service you purport to offer to the public based on sexual orientation or their expression of it. Religion should not be used as a means to operate above the law; particularly considering businesses don't have religions.

If you believe that this cake shop purported to sell pro-same-sex marriage cakes, I'd love to see the shop's advertising materials that led you to this conclusion.

 

[Wirey]

The issue is not about denying service to certain people though, but rather about denying certain services.
In other words, any gay individual can buy any cake there, but no person at all could buy a cake with that message written on it.

Exactly, denying services. White Only. Juden Verbotten. In other words, illegal discrimination. If someone hates Chinese, that's a choice they make. If someone is Chinese, they were born that way and can't change it. See the difference? If you're Adam, and the only love that makes you happy is Steve Austin and his Bionic Buns, that is who you are. If the Invisible Jewish Zombie is telling you that writing "True Love: Adam and Steve" on a frigging pastry will somehow harm you, tough. It won't. If that's a problem for you, feel free to go live somewhere where the word of god is more important than law, like Iraq.

Of course, when I say 'you', I don't mean you specifically, I'm speaking in the broader sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you believe that this cake shop purported to sell pro-same-sex marriage cakes, I'd love to see the shop's advertising materials that led you to this conclusion.

This business provides a service where you submit your own design or message to go on a cake. They have no legitimate grounds to refuse what the customer submits, providing it's within the law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think this for all matters of conscience, or only ones where the business person agrees with you?

I do not have a good answer for this. So, for example, I distinguish between refusing to promote bigotry and refusing to serve someone out of bigotry. I fully understand that it can be a problematic distinction and would nevertheless refuse as an act of civil disobedience.

 

[Nietzsche]

Does every discussion of this issue have to dissolve into semantics? "But, what if the dude like hates Chinese, and the cook is dating a Chinese chick? What then?"

Law. The law. The law says you don't get to deny someone service because they're gay. Just like the time I had to take down that sign on my lunch counter that said "Whites Only". Get it? You might hate black people, but they have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as every other citizen. And discriminating against someone for being born gay is exactly the same as a Jim Crow car. If this baker's view of the world is so distorted that he thinks writing "Stick it in my hairy bunghole" (I assume a traditional gay wedding expression) in pink and chocolate frosting will somehow harm him, I for one am overjoyed at the idea of his death due to starvation, and subsequent exit from the gene pool. The law occasionally exists to protect people who have no other recourse to protect themselves, and if you feel differently, you are one of the bigots who made Selma the lovely place it was in the '60s, whether you mean it or not.

I think it should be illegal to force someone to make food for retarded or elderly people. After all, they're a burden on society. And don't get me started on Jews, natives, and Italians.

I endorse both this message and the sentiment behind it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I wonder if Ashers will now be sent requests for some controversial cake messages?

 

[columbus]

If you believe that this cake shop purported to sell pro-same-sex marriage cakes, I'd love to see the shop's advertising materials that led you to this conclusion.

I don't know what this shop advertises. But if they feel the need to discriminate, they should put that in all of their promotional material.
Put a sign on the door" Management reserves the right
to investigate the contents of your underwear for Scriptural compliance."
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This business provides a service where you submit your own design or message to go on a cake. They have no legitimate grounds to refuse what the customer submits, providing it's within the law.

So they put themselves forward as being willing to make any and every cake that a customer requested? Please show me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what this shop advertises.

Okay - so you can't back up your claim. Thanks.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you believe that this cake shop purported to sell pro-same-sex marriage cakes, I'd love to see the shop's advertising materials that led you to this conclusion.

The shop purported to sell cakes for a variety of functions; including wedding ceremonies. At the time Civil Partnerships were considered the gay equivalent of full on marriage in the eyes of the law. Refusing to sell to someone because 'it's not real marriage' is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in this case because gays could, under law, marry.

 

[fantome profane]

If you believe that this cake shop purported to sell pro-same-sex marriage cakes, I'd love to see the shop's advertising materials that led you to this conclusion.

What if they had a sign up somewhere that said "We will customize your cake anyway you ask", or "we will write anything on your cake". I don't know if that is the case, but it is possible. I have seen signs like that. Does that make a difference?

Or on the other hand what if they have had an on going policy that they will refuse to write certain things on their cakes? Does that change things?

I am going to be honest here, I don't know. I do feel that there is a line to be drawn somewhere between much need anti-discrimination laws and personal freedom.

I look at it this way. When you open a business to the public you are in essence making a contract with the public. And you should be held to the terms of that contract.

 

[columbus]

Okay - so you can't back up your claim. Thanks.

What claim are you referring to?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if they had a sign up somewhere that said "We will customize your cake anyway you ask", or "we will write anything on your cake". I don't know if that is the case, but it is possible. I have seen signs like that. Does that make a difference?

Maybe.

Or on the other hand what if they have had an on going policy that they will refuse to write certain things on their cakes? Does that change things?

I am going to be honest here, I don't know. I do feel that there is a line to be drawn somewhere between much need anti-discrimination laws and personal freedom.

I look at it this way. When you open a business to the public you are in essence making a contract with the public. And you should be held to the terms of that contract.

The law generally considers "gratuitous promises" to be non-binding.

BTW: according to the prof of my "law for engineers" course, in a normal retail transaction, the offer is made by the customer and the acceptance is by the seller.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What claim are you referring to?
Tom

Sorry - it was Scotsman's claim. I lost track of who posted what.

 

[fantome profane]

Maybe.


The law generally considers "gratuitous promises" to be non-binding.

BTW: according to the prof of my "law for engineers" course, in a normal retail transaction, the offer is made by the customer and the acceptance is by the seller.

It can't be that simple. If that were the case then whites only lunch counters would be perfectly legal. And I fully admit I am no legal expert, but it can't be that simple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can't be that simple. If that were the case then whites only lunch counters would be perfectly legal. And I fully admit I am no legal expert, but it can't be that simple.

I don't see how that follows.

What I was getting at is that if it was the seller making the offer, then - for instance - a customer could accept the seller's offer for an out-of-stock item and then sue the seller when they fail to provide it. When it's the buyer making the offer, the seller can refuse it and say "sorry - we're out of stock."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So they put themselves forward as being willing to make any and every cake that a customer requested? Please show me.

Terms and Conditions | Build a cake - Build your own cake online - Interactive cake builder

While issues of copyright and legality are mentioned, there is no mention of refusing on the grounds of religious objection.

 

[leibowde84]

'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News

A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage.

Thoughts?

A cake is a product, not a service. According to the Civil Rights Act, assuming it is seen to protect homosexuals, as I think it should be, store owners cannot descriminate as to who they sell their products to. A photographer, on the other hand, does provide a service.

 

[Wirey]

I don't see how that follows.

What I was getting at is that if it was the seller making the offer, then - for instance - a customer could accept the seller's offer for an out-of-stock item and then sue the seller when they fail to provide it. When it's the buyer making the offer, the seller can refuse it and say "sorry - we're out of stock."

Out of stock and "You're gay" are different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A cake is a product, not a service. According to the Civil Rights Act, assuming it is seen to protect homosexuals, as I think it should be, store owners cannot descriminate as to who they sell their products to. A photographer, on the other hand, does provide a service.

But they didn't discriminate as to who they sold their products to. According to the article, the store would've sold the customers some other cake. This is about which products the business is willing to sell.

... if we look at things your way. Personally, I do think custom cake decorating can be seen as a service.