Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

When ever I'v ordered a cake they have always known what I wanted written on it as part of the order. This is bull shit. They knew what they were doing when the took the order.

Rickie wrote: When ever I'v ordered a cake they have always known what I wanted written on it as part of the order. This is bull shit. They knew what they were doing when the took the order.

They refused the order.So they never took the order.

they arent in the web page development business, or the banner making business, or the PR business

they were willing to provide their service (cake) to their customer, in and of itself, but they were not willing to personally say "support x" when they personally felt that "x" should not be supported

the issue could be communism or the nazi party, or nambla

the rebuttal "but nazis are discriminatory" does not counter this argument because we only know that nazis are discriminatory NOW, AFTER THE FACTS

if we had been bakers in germany and we could see that the nazis were a big problem, but the rest of society hadnt caught on, it would be pretty important to us to be able to use our voices in a way that was consistent with our consciences

ive posted a lot here, more than my share, so this will be the last unless someone addresses me.

i believe that it is in all of our long term best interests to preserve every individuals right to personal control over his or her own voice and that the right to say "i wont explicitly support this message" is way more important the the right to force people to support your message

its not an issue of refusing service imo, it is legally imposed coercion of a persons voice, and i think that is a dangerous precedent

thanks for reading
peace!

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Adder wrote: ...if the owner does not want to bake cakes for some part of the community for reasons that fall within discrimination then they should stop thinking they can run a cake business legally

but they were happy to bake the cake; they had no problems with baking a cake for the wedding and if they had only been asked to bake the cake this would never have happened

If they'd said we don't do messages on cakes, then it would not be discrimination and there'd be no issue. But if they provide the service of doing it to others, but deny it to people on grounds of anything covered by discrimination law, then its probably illegal to do so.... for the reasons outlined.

MadHatter wrote: So when I came to your country one of the things I noticed in the welcome packets me and my shipmates got was a healthy list of brothels we could visit. Would you be willing to apply the same judgment here to those workers? Would you be willing to have a judge tell the worker you will go back and have sex with that man even if you do not want to? *edited to clean up my meaning*

I've no idea about those laws. I guess a sex worker can refuse service for any number of reasons. If she/he does so because of anything covered by discrimination law then its probably illegal under that law.

MadHatter wrote: Also are you ok with the government telling you that you will abide by its morals or starve? Because a government telling you that you will follow some rules or you cant make a living is doing just that.

I'm not into pointing out fallacy and such, but isn't that a big exaggeration of the purpose and scope of the laws in question? If you mean as a concept.... then no, but I'm not really positioned to argue the balance between the social contract and natural rights beyond in a relatively free society that contract is the work of generations of trial and error and usually a compromise for the greater good even if some personal freedoms might be removed.

Adder wrote:

MadHatter wrote: So when I came to your country one of the things I noticed in the welcome packets me and my shipmates got was a healthy list of brothels we could visit. Would you be willing to apply the same judgment here to those workers? Would you be willing to have a judge tell the worker you will go back and have sex with that man even if you do not want to? *edited to clean up my meaning*

I've no idea about those laws. I guess a sex worker can refuse service for any number of reasons. If she/he does so because of anything covered by discrimination law then its probably illegal under that law.

MadHatter wrote: Also are you ok with the government telling you that you will abide by its morals or starve? Because a government telling you that you will follow some rules or you cant make a living is doing just that.

I'm not into pointing out fallacy and such, but isn't that a big exaggeration of the purpose and scope of the laws in question? If you mean as a concept.... then no, but I'm not really positioned to argue the balance between the social contract and natural rights beyond in a relatively free society that contract is the work of generations of trial and error and usually a compromise for the greater good even if some personal freedoms might be removed.

What I was asking here with the brothels is are you ok with a government ordering the service against the will of the worker just like they did here. Are you ok with the government ordering someone under threat of violence ( arrest is violence make no mistake) to have sex with a person against their will

An exaggeration no I think not. It is the practical impact of such laws. If you do not live by our morals we will make it illegal for you to run your business and you can starve. That is exactly what such laws are saying. It is a claim to the labor or goods of a person against their will. No one should have a government gun pointed at their head on any issues that do not infringe on another's rights. And no one has a right to the goods or services of another.

A government exists only to safeguard the liberties and lives of its people from attack. It is not your bank, it is not your parent, it is not someone that levels the playing field. It should never be any of those things.

Adder wrote: If they'd said we don't do messages on cakes, then it would not be discrimination and there'd be no issue. But if they provide the service of doing it to others, but deny it to people on grounds of anything covered by discrimination law, then its probably illegal to do so.... for the reasons outlined.

hypothetically at least, laws are meant to promote the greatest good

the right of control over one's own voice is fundamental to a free society, because in a scoiety where people actually do make a difference, it is using our voices which determines our shared future

we need to be able to use them honestly

if the law can tell you that you HAVE TO promote such and such message, then whats to stop the law from saying that you HAVE TO PROMOTE religious indoctrination in schools? or man/boy love? or naziism or communism or any number of other bad ideas?

as i said last post "the rebuttal "but nazis are discriminatory" does not counter this argument because we only know that nazis are discriminatory NOW, AFTER THE FACTS

if we had been in germany and we could see that the nazis were a big problem, but the rest of society hadnt caught on, it would be pretty important to us to be able to use our voices in a way that was consistent with our consciences"

in order to maintain a free society, people must have the right to say "no, i wont say that" or "i dont support that"

imo, the issue here wasnt about baking a cake, it was about being coerced into furthering a message that they felt was not good for society

its about being able to speak the truth as you see it, even if it is not popular

whether we agree/disagree with their views about gay marriage is irrelevant, free people should not ever be legally forced to advocate something that they dont believe in

edit

and you can say "well its the law" and yes, it is the law
being the law doesnt mean that its right, it only means that its a crime not to do it

Back up. Did you just compare a sex worker to cake?

I'd only say that laws aren't there to punish people, but to protect people. It's just due to the diversity of society some laws end up infringing on some individuals in way they would deem unnecessary, and as a result either ignorance of those laws or deliberate violation of them can end up leading to people being punished as a result. Where these things are blurred the courts are meant to be able to assess individual circumstances, and so also sentencing can serve as another measure to best protect society (from threat or cost of incarceration!) to balance up real measures in individual cases. It's just about the individual knowing the landscape of the society so they can interact with it in the most productive and rewarding way, and various types of activity have various types of laws associated to them. The sex worker would cite some other reason for not providing a service to an individual. I've no idea what that might be, but I did a quick google and found that "You have the right to refuse to see a client if you think the situation is unsafe or you think the client may be violent. You can’t be fined or punished in any way for refusing a client according to the law under Sex Work Regulations 2006."... and so that is what a sex worker would use I imagine, but they cannot use anything covered by anti-discrimination law. So it's not about making a point about the individuals morals, its about participating in the laws of the land so the outcome suits your morals. If there are no legal avenues to avoid doing something, then it might not be the right line of work because those laws would be there for a reason, and as stated IMO the reason is to protect people - its just very complicated because we have so many different types of people in a free society.

Leah Starspectre wrote: Back up. Did you just compare a sex worker to cake?

A good or in this case a service is a good or service. Simply because we think one to be more personal does not change that once we allow that a government can dictate your moral judgement in how you provide a service it can do it for any service.

But to answer your question I did not compare a person to cake. I compared providing one service ( icing a cake) with providing another service (sex). Service is service when it comes to the application of such a law and further morally one service is no different than another.