Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Ne t'en fais pas, Bricky-boy ... What you do is not ripping people off ; there are a lot of homologous jobs : people who find the most cost-effective way of obtaining supplies and services, best rapport qualité/prix. That is what the courtage is too (the rdv that I had this afternoon) finding the best finance package for the client, and for everyone involved (client, vendor, bank, insurance &c) It is merely people who specialise in that sector of the market using their skills to benefit those who are less familiar with it. And that is what you do, only in the construction domain.

Ripping people off would be contracting for substandard materials to fit within a budget that would make the most money for the construction company at the expense of the client (certainly considering maintenance costs and occupants' security).

In the wedding cake domain, it certainly feels like that bakery screwed up, not only from the point of view of the court, but also business-wise. As Senan pointed out, they lost an opportunity as well as a court case. They probably also lost some business. That will undoubtedly provide new factors into their "identity" that they rather bungled preserving.

I find myself musing over the "identity" of the gay man/couple who denounced them. How does 'identity' and 'integrity' enter into relation ... ?

Brick wrote: I came across this article just now and was wondering what people thought of it?

I'd imagine most Brits will be aware of this story, but I'm not sure how far outside the UK and Ireland (if at all) its spread so I'll provide some background:

A homosexual man named Gareth Lee went into his local, family-run bakery (that he has used many time in the past) and asked them to ice a cake for him. The message he wanted them to put on the cake was 'Support Gay Marriage'. The McArthur family, who own the bakery, said that they could not ice that message on the cake as it went against their 'religious beliefs' as Christians. Mr Lee took them to court.

Mr Lee argued that this was homosexual discrimination (in the UK and Ireland it is illegal for a store to refuse a customer based upon their race/gender/religion/sexual orientation etc) and that the McArthurs refusal of his request was therefore illegal.

The McArthurs said that they were not discriminating against Mr Lee's sexuality as they had served him many times in the past and insisted that they would continue to serve him in the future. What they took issue with was the message, which they argued was a political message that they did not agree with and by icing it on the cake, their bakery would effectively be endorsing that message. They argued that to force someone to write a politic message that they did not agree with was undemocratic.

Mr Lee won the case. And the following appeal.

The result has caused a bit of an uproar in certain parts of the UK and Ireland as its set a legal precedence. An example of this effect would be, were it in the USA, that a Democrat would be legally forced to write a message saying 'Vote Trump' and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts? Is it a great victory in the fight against homophobia or is it just a great victory for SJW that has resulted in an undemocratic and unjust precedent?

As I live my path I meet a lot of ...fluffer. this is my own idea naturally but some times I see people reving engines and building up anger...and it seems to me waisted. Just fluff, kina like road rage. Theres an article video and a lot of money spent on..............a cake. yea, that's my thought brick , sorry there no profound light going on here brother other than smacking my face and saying, dude its a cake. we want to go travel to the moon , Mars Jupiter Saturn and we still argue about cake. "we learned to fly like birds and swim the sea like fish, yet we have yet to walk this earth like brother and sister..." funny but most every war has started with someone having something some one wants. sad really that we still kill over the basic of urges. but there is hope! I am Jedi, you are too and that kina makes me smile! May the Living Force be with you brother brick!

MadHatter wrote: 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

Someone may have a more thorough understanding but I think the following is pretty close to correct.

The law in the UK/US is founded on the principle of inalienable rights uniformly afforded to every member of the polity. Lets leave aside the lack of consistently applied moral principles supposedly underpinning these laws (such as mixed race/non-hetero individuals etc). There are two important distinctions when it comes to rights. There are positive rights and negative rights.

Positive rights oblige action while negative rights oblige inaction. The right to life is a negative right, if you have a negative right to life someone is obliged not to kill you. Freedom of speech is a negative right, i.e someone cannot stop you from saying what you want to say. Other negative rights include civil/political rights, private property (people can't steal from you). freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion etc.

Positive rights in contrast require action from people. These can include: police protection, right to education, right to adequate standard of living, right to national security/military, health care, social security, internet etc. People and government can be obliged to fulfill the needs of these rights even if they contradict with a negative right. However there are grades of rights, certain rights are more fundamental and some more obliging.

The relevance of this to your post MadHatter is that just because you declare yourself free does not mean you are entitled to do anything to anyone you want, further it does not mean that in certain circumstances are you free from any and all obligations to other people.

We do not live completely isolated and separate lives, we are not lone individuals, we live in a community and if you want to enjoy the benefits of a community the community gets to demand things from you in return.

Brick wrote:

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 agree with you completely along lines of morality, Brick. People shouldn't have to sacrifice their own sense of right and wrong in order to make a living. As Jedi, this case doesn't sit well with me at all.

And as Goken pointed out, I do work in advertising and we don't always have the best reputation as a profession. I hear that we "sell snake oil" a lot. I have to reconcile that with the many good things I am able to do in my community using the radio stations I have access to.

Looking at this objectively though, there is never only one way to legally do business or make money. I'm sure there is a different business that meshes with their morality and can still be profitable. The same goes for me. If the day comes when I can no longer morally justify doing what I do everyday, I'm going to have to learn a new business.

Brick wrote:

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.

When did the customer ask them to give up their sense of right or wrong? They were never asked to change their minds on the issue, they were asked to bake a cake.

Akkarin wrote:

MadHatter wrote: 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

Someone may have a more thorough understanding but I think the following is pretty close to correct.

The law in the UK/US is founded on the principle of inalienable rights uniformly afforded to every member of the polity. Lets leave aside the lack of consistently applied moral principles supposedly underpinning these laws (such as mixed race/non-hetero individuals etc). There are two important distinctions when it comes to rights. There are positive rights and negative rights.

Positive rights oblige action while negative rights oblige inaction. The right to life is a negative right, if you have a negative right to life someone is obliged not to kill you. Freedom of speech is a negative right, i.e someone cannot stop you from saying what you want to say. Other negative rights include civil/political rights, private property (people can't steal from you). freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion etc.

Positive rights in contrast require action from people. These can include: police protection, right to education, right to adequate standard of living, right to national security/military, health care, social security, internet etc. People and government can be obliged to fulfill the needs of these rights even if they contradict with a negative right. However there are grades of rights, certain rights are more fundamental and some more obliging.

The relevance of this to your post MadHatter is that just because you declare yourself free does not mean you are entitled to do anything to anyone you want, further it does not mean that in certain circumstances are you free from any and all obligations to other people.

We do not live completely isolated and separate lives, we are not lone individuals, we live in a community and if you want to enjoy the benefits of a community the community gets to demand things from you in return.

No one has any right to anyone's labor or goods against their will. Nor does my existence give anyone claim to anything from me. Because if one argues that is the case then I would like to see someone here apply that logic to a Klan meeting demanding a black catering company serve their hate rally.

Akkarin wrote: When did the customer ask them to give up their sense of right or wrong? They were never asked to change their minds on the issue, they were asked to bake a cake.

It's not the baking of the cake they take issue with, it's having to write 'Support Gay Marriage' on it, which they believe is wrong and, ironically, so does the law as gay marriage is still illegal in Northern Ireland where this incident took place.

they were happy to bake the cake
if they had only been asked to bake a cake this would never have happened, but thats NOT all they were asked to do; they were asked to write out a message that was totally contrary to thier moral beliefs, and that is a very different matter from simply baking a cake

Brick wrote: Mr Lee won the case. And the following appeal.

The result has caused a bit of an uproar in certain parts of the UK and Ireland as its set a legal precedence. An example of this effect would be, were it in the USA, that a Democrat would be legally forced to write a message saying 'Vote Trump' and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts? Is it a great victory in the fight against homophobia or is it just a great victory for SJW that has resulted in an undemocratic and unjust precedent?

I'm very happy to hear that Mr Lee won this case, and the appeal as well.

I work for a company where I gladly help customer's print messages on products which do not align with my own beliefs, because I believe in free speech. Even if I owned the company, my view would not change.

I know this, because I design websites and work as a web developer in my spare time (not that I've had ANY lately), and I've also helped customers with websites / art that may conflict with my personal views, but that doesn't offend me or harm me in any way.

The only guideline the company I work for has, and that I stick to as well, is that we will not print any messages which target individuals, promote hate speech, or otherwise infringe on human rights. So, "Support Gay Marriage" and "Vote for Trump" would both be 100% fine at my job, and my private work.

Racial slurs, and other targeted (hate, etc) material would not.

Brick wrote: What are your thoughts? Is it a great victory in the fight against homophobia or is it just a great victory for SJW that has resulted in an undemocratic and unjust precedent?

It makes me feel sad when I think about the possibility that this fight, in general, can last for long time to come..


_{Et le combat cessa faute de combattants.
P. Corneille, Le Cid (1637).}
Translation: And the fight ended with lack of warriors.