Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Akkarin wrote:
"I find it morally unconscionable to provide services to homosexuals, because they are sinners filled with the evil spirit of the devil" - said the taxi driver to Mrs and Mrs Parks.

Interesting point. I don't believe that the taxi driver should be able to refuse Mrs & Mrs Parks a lift in his taxi because they are gay. I also don't believe that the McArthur's should be able to refuse Mr Lee service because he is.

However, in this case they weren't actually refusing him service based on his sexual orientation, as proven by the fact that they've served him before, and are willing to serve him again in the future. All they are doing is refusing to put a political slogan on one of their products.

Now, I happen to think that they should just ice the damn cake, and I agree with Leah that its a dick move not to. But I DO NOT think that they should be legally obligated to do so. As Goken said, it's the owners of a company deciding how they wish their company to be represented. It's just like the numerous musicians that told Donald Trump not to use their music at his rallies, the music was made to be enjoyed, not to push a political agenda. Those cakes were made to be enjoyed, not to push a political agenda. I a company that banners had refused then fair enough, because banners are regularly used to promote things, cakes aren't.

Akkarin wrote: But what if that somewhere else doesn't allow it? And another somewhere else doesn't allow it? All of a sudden these personal views might in principle not discriminate, but in practice result in a structural discrimination against the minority.

I see your point, but again I'd say that its not discrimination against the individual, just refusal to push politics that the company doesn't endorse.

Goken wrote:

Akkarin wrote: I'm against eating meat, but when I worked at Subway I still served people meat. Can I get a conscience clause saying I can refuse to serve meat to customers? If serving meat is such a problem, why would I put myself in a position where I had to serve meat? If there was something about my job which I couldn't stand, I should learn to tolerate it or find a different job.

In your case that makes sense because you were an employee, but this case, if I understood the OP, was about the business owner's decision not to do it. If the owner said do it and the employee refused I'd be with you. The boss makes the rules, you don't like it then leave. The owner gets to decide how their store is represented.

Doesn't matter what rules the boss makes, if they contradict the law, something has to be changed. In this case the court (and appeal court) both ruled that it was discriminatory.

The judges reasoning was that the bakery 'is " conducting a business for profit ", and it is not a religious group' therefore it cannot use a religious defence against providing monetary transactions.

Brick wrote: Now, I happen to think that they should just ice the damn cake, and I agree with Leah that its a dick move not to. But I DO NOT think that they should be legally obligated to do so. As Goken said, it's the owners of a company deciding how they wish their company to be represented. It's just like the numerous musicians that told Donald Trump not to use their music at his rallies, the music was made to be enjoyed, not to push a political agenda. Those cakes were made to be enjoyed, not to push a political agenda. I a company that banners had refused then fair enough, because banners are regularly used to promote things, cakes aren't.

Brick wrote: I see your point, but again I'd say that its not discrimination against the individual, just refusal to push politics that the company doesn't endorse.

Discrimination can only be employed when the factor being discriminated is integral to the action that occurs with it. If a producer is looking for someone to play a man in a movie, they are perfectly entitled to discriminate on the basis of sex and refuse women from playing that role. This is because sex is integral to the action (acting). Similarly if the producer was going to make a movie about a black person (12 years a slave), they are perfectly entitled to discriminate on the basis of race. Because race is integral to the action.

The bakery is not a political organisation, it is not a church, it is a business. Political organisations ask members to "declare that they agree with the values of the organisation" i.e if someone is utterly against their political stances the political organisation can refuse service on the basis of political affiliation. They are allowed to do this because political affiliation is integral to the act of supporting a political organisation.

A church can use similar reasoning to refuse memberships on the basis that the individual's religious beliefs are not in accordance with the church's views. This is discrimination on grounds of religious belief, but is perfectly allowed because religious belief is integral to the act of practising a religion.

Business is for making profit. Political and religious views are not integral to the act of making money, therefore they cannot be used as justification for grounds of discrimination.

What would be grounds for discrimination? Well it would be not having money i.e someone couldn't afford to buy the product. Think there's no such thing as discrimination based on money? Well taxes vary depending upon someone's level of income.

For what it's worth Akkarin, I agree with you morally, I just don't think that they should be legally required to do it. It's a sad reality that morality and legality are not the same thing.

I think it's morally wrong of them to not want to do it and is a bad business move, but legally I think it should be okay. I reiterate my example of the pro-ISIS message or the swastika icing. Way fewer people would argue that they should be forced to ice those cakes.

Tending to lean toward agreeing with the defence of the judge's decision, especially in that the bakery owners gave religious convictions and political stance as their excuse, there still seems to be something a little unclear.

Nightclub owners are also businesses, exchanging a service against paying customers. Yet, at the door of many nightclubs, one finds "security" personnel who admit or refuse people based on some pretty arbitrary criteria. It is doubtful that they would say that it is political or religious in nature, but discriminations are made ... in fact, it is their job to make them.

The political angle is really more interesting than the religious one. After all, the bakery would indeed sell him bread and croissants, they just wouldn't make his wedding cake. That is not the same as refusing service, but only a "particular" service. Insurance companies get away with that all the time. If I had a print shop and was offered a contract to print the campaign propaganda for a candidate towards whose political platform I was opposed - even on religious grounds -, would I be guilty of discrimination by turning it down ?

I'm still curious as to why it was taken to court to begin with. The grounds of the plaintif seem a little shaky, and perhaps a bit fuelled by the popularity this sort of scandal has these days. There are orders of damage when it comes to discrimination, I feel. A law suit against a health service for not providing their services based on their religion's stance on sexuality, for instance, would be justified a bit more than one against a bakery.

It is very difficult to legislate morality, and often dangerous to try to do so. Even in this discussion, I would intuit that whatever and however good the reason used to discuss this matter is, we are still inclined to reason from our convictions, not to them.

I'm curious to know if this bakery ever previously iced a cake with any sort of similar opinionated message. There might be a precedent here. If they have done something similar for someone else before, it weakens the defense of the bakery considerably.

I also agree with Akkarin that as soon as you go into business to make a profit, you are subjecting yourself to a different set of rules and expectations.

As a greedy capitalist, I would have iced the cake as requested, made my own opinion about it known to the public and then iced five more with my viewpoint on it and sold them to people who came to support my opinion and my business. I'd continue to ice cakes for people who purposely come to make me write stuff I don't agree with too. Those would be the best looking cakes I ever iced, and I'd take that money to the bank.

They could've turned this into free advertising and sold a lot more cakes, but they lost a court case instead.

I think the ruling is bs. First of all no one should ever be forced to do business against their will for any reason. Secondly your freedom should not go away simply because you wish to make a living. Finally claiming a right to service is claiming a right to the goods or labor of someone which is not much better then claiming a right to slavery in my opinion. Or in a slightly more similar but more crass case should a prostitute in places where it's legal be forced to provide that service no matter their objection? Finally while I find it fiscally stupid and morally objectionable I am fine with discrimination for any reason by any nongovernmental entity. And this is coming from a gay man


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gee, I wonder if Senan works in some sort of marketing or advertising. :laugh: That's a pretty clever way to spin it. Make the cake, so you avoid all this legal trouble, make it known you disagree thus preserving your political stance, then use that to spur on even more business. Brilliant.

Senan wrote: I also agree with Akkarin that as soon as you go into business to make a profit, you are subjecting yourself to a different set of rules and expectations.

Whilst I completely understand what you're saying/mean, the issue I take with that statement is that it implies the only way one can legally do business/make money is to completely give up their own sense of what is right and wrong.

I appreciate 'right' and 'wrong' are very vague but to be legally force someone to do something that goes against their very core beliefs and arguably their very identity as a human being (at least their own, personal sense of identity) doesn't sit right with me.

It's an issue I have with my own job. A friend once told me that my job is to effectively rip people off. Now I don't view my job that way, but nonetheless it hurt me and raised questions in my mind. As a Jedi, should I be doing a job that may be ripping someone off?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

nambla has a social mission of eliminating age of consent laws so that adult men can have sexual relationships with little boys

they are a marginalized group

i find them morally objectionable, and in no capacity whatsoever would i endorse a pro nambla message, regardless of the legal consequences

i support the right to say "i dont and wont use my voice to support that"

the gay couple was probably harassing the shop anyway, the bakers were happy to make the cake itself, they just didnt want to write a message they disagreed with

they were in the business of baking cakes, not political slogans