Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Just for clarification, I am not referring to what the different rights covered are referring to as in “they say this”, or that… but what could be interpreted to cover said instance by a right if it were used in defence. IE, if it went to court what someone may reference to support their case.

Each country will have its own laws that can be interpreted and will cover things differently. And no matter how we think (even common interpretations) things are covered there is a group of appointed people, the Supreme Court in the US, that can go and turn it all upside down if they get a wild hair up their butts.

[hr]
Hate speech is pretty much everything that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. In Brandenburg v. Ohio that, "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."
_{quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech for quick reference only}

Suggested reading… http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


As we can see, this is a topic where in the US the laws, rights and interpretations of can be in constant conflict. This is one reason I prefer to operate under the “spirit of the law” and not strictly in accordance to “letter of the law.” I don’t think that there can ever be laws enacted that cover all possibilities and still fairly assess all outcomes with no room for interpretation. Especially since ideas and ideals lack rigidity, as in the social, cultural and grammatical usage is fluid and ever changing, IE: dynamic.

I agree, Wescli, that the spirit of the law is important, especially in cases like this. I think the person suing the bakery is not at all in line with the spirit of anti-discrimination laws or with the First Amendment. They are grandstanding and trying to bring awareness to a cause, which would be fine if they weren't also punishing a bakery financially and forcing their cause on other people.

The plaintiff may have won the battle in court so far, but I doubt bullying a business is helping to advance their cause of equality and having compassion for others.

but I doubt bullying a business is helping to advance their cause of equality and having compassion for others.

Is their cause "equality and compassion for all"? or is their cause "more for me"?



There's no mutual exclusivity between being a maligned and underrepresented group, and being a deadshit :laugh: :whistle:


(That is of course outside the context of this discussion, which I think is more along the lines of "What is or should be the Law's involvement with these issues")



(I'm not calling Gareth out here, I'm not even sure how involved he is with this debacle. He may have been a catalyst, but it seems as likely as anything to me that the Equality Commission got wind of this and saw an opportunity to, as it was put "grandstand" )

I'm glad you quoted this line because I should have said it differently. It is more accurate to say that I doubt bullying a business is helping to advance THE cause of equality and having compassion for others in general.

My intention was to point out that there might be people fighting for marriage equality who also think this lawsuit was a bad idea and unfair to the bakery, while still believing in equality and compassion for others. Some may feel misrepresented or lumped in with the plaintiff when they do not wish to be. I'm speculating, of course.