Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Adder wrote: 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.

we assume that the laws are there to protect people, but if there is no legal way to avoid doing something that you find objectionable, then maybe the laws arent there to protect people any more? maybe it means that the laws have begun to turn bad, and that the right thing to do is to use your voice according to your conscience?

im not saying we should only go along with the laws that we agree with, and i dont know off hand of any "formula" that one might use to determine the difference, but thats why we should be allowed to control our own voices; so that society can talk these things out and FORCING people to say what they dont mean can only lead to trouble i think

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

uh huh, we see who took it there

MadHatter wrote:

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.

I would argue that it's VERY different when it's a person's body that is the service.

EDIT: But I'm not going to argue it here because it would derail the thread

Adder wrote: 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.

And what does this law protect people from? Because they have no right to another's labor. They have no right to that which they do not own as far as goods are concerned. So what is the protection for?
Further saying work around the law or find new work is awfully similar to the arguments for the discriminatory regulations that drove Jewish people out of particular lines of work in 1930s Germany. That too was to protect people according to a government. It didnt make it right or moral though.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

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 judgment 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.

I would argue that it's VERY different when it's a person's body that is the service.

EDIT: But I'm not going to argue it here because it would derail the thread

A persons labor can easily be argued to be their bodily control. So I do not see much difference. But if you would like to discuss it further I always enjoy a PM debate with ya.

MadHatter wrote: And what does this law protect people from? Because they have no right to another's labor. They have no right to that which they do not own as far as goods are concerned. So what is the protection for?

The anti-discrimination law protects people from being discriminated against on grounds such as race, sexual preference etc. They can make their own cakes and not give them to people based on discriminatory beliefs as much as they like outside of business but there is a likely a clear distinction on individual and business activity. The laws protect the society, which is made up of individuals. So by conducting a business in a society, they agree to serve that society as dictated by the laws. Some businesses are illegal for example, what if I was an assassin - should a government stop me from eating cake because of they think its illegal! But every law in existence cannot only exist if it serves every person, so your going to have many laws irrelevant to any individual - but that is vastly different to be irrelevant when those laws exist to serve the society and not the individual. They impact the individual directly based on its impact on society ie others. It's probably why many drugs are illegal, its not to protect the user - its to protect the society from the impact to society those drugs have on the user.

MadHatter wrote: Further saying work around the law or find new work is awfully similar to the arguments for the discriminatory regulations that drove Jewish people out of particular lines of work in 1930s Germany. That too was to protect people according to a government. It didnt make it right or moral though.

Nah, what I mean by working around the laws (plural) is not to work outside the law (singular, being the body of all laws). When I consider 'law', I see it as a collection of pieces or articles of law as a collection, and as such its about acting lawfully by knowing what is and what is not legal and not walking into a proverbial bear trap to make a point that one should be able to walk along that particular path, when they could just step around it.

I'm not very good at explaining myself, but that was sort of the point of the example with the sex worker, to refuse service for allowable reasons under one piece of law, instead of violating another piece of law - to minimize harm/conflict/whatever. If the bakery had said that is too many letters to put on a cake to avoid doing it then the gay couple would not have exposed to the full extent of the discrimination. Society has been at this so long its all in the details, and knowing those details probably is what constitutes a professional in a field. Fair to say then that bakery was acting unprofessionally, and as a result was liable.

MadHatter wrote:

Adder wrote: 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.

And what does this law protect people from? Because they have no right to another's labor. They have no right to that which they do not own as far as goods are concerned. So what is the protection for?
Further saying work around the law or find new work is awfully similar to the arguments for the discriminatory regulations that drove Jewish people out of particular lines of work in 1930s Germany. That too was to protect people according to a government. It didnt make it right or moral though.

You keep saying that people have no right to another's labor, but people absolutely do if the person is selling their labor for money. It isn't slavery when the laborer benefits financially and is doing it by choice. As soon as I pay you for labor you are selling, I own the fruits of that labor. If you don't deliver, you're stealing from me. If you sell something to others and not to me, you're discriminating.

Further, comparing Nazi Germany to a free capitalist economy is entirely inaccurate. Sex workers in Australia and bakers in Northern Ireland choose their profession and are able to do it freely so long as they follow the law. Once they choose it, they are expected to follow rules they should be aware of before they get into the business in the first place.

I think the lawsuit is frivolous, but the plaintiff won according to the law.

Senan wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Adder wrote: 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.

And what does this law protect people from? Because they have no right to another's labor. They have no right to that which they do not own as far as goods are concerned. So what is the protection for?
Further saying work around the law or find new work is awfully similar to the arguments for the discriminatory regulations that drove Jewish people out of particular lines of work in 1930s Germany. That too was to protect people according to a government. It didnt make it right or moral though.

You keep saying that people have no right to another's labor, but people absolutely do if the person is selling their labor for money. It isn't slavery when the laborer benefits financially and is doing it by choice. As soon as I pay you for labor you are selling, I own the fruits of that labor. If you don't deliver, you're stealing from me. If you sell something to others and not to me, you're discriminating.

Further, comparing Nazi Germany to a free capitalist economy is entirely inaccurate. Sex workers in Australia and bakers in Northern Ireland choose their profession and are able to do it freely so long as they follow the law. Once they choose it, they are expected to follow rules they should be aware of before they get into the business in the first place.

I think the lawsuit is frivolous, but the plaintiff won according to the law.

You have no right to another's labor if they do not wish to sell it to you. To force them to work against their will and toss money at them after using governmental force to get what you want is no better than forcing yourself on a sex worker and saying its not rape because you paid. Its all forcing someone to do something against their will because you want their service and they do not wish to give it to you. The reason they want to reject you is irrelevant morally. The law is wrong here.

Otherwise, we had best start making people shop at stores against their will and work at places against their will. If employers and vendors cannot discriminate then the worker and shopper should not have the right to either.

You say they can work if they follow the rules. Same thing as saying oh you can make a living IF you follow my moral code. Otherwise, go hungry. It's unethical. No one has the right to demand their morals be put upon another in order for them to make a living.

I would argue that it's VERY different when it's a person's body that is the service.

I'm as pro sex worker as you can get (It pays half my rent ) (That's just some fluff to keep you on-side, since i'm about to disagree with you )

For the purposes of this discussion, I think the comparison is as apt as any other.

If I go to a Baker's, (Butcher's, Candlestick Maker's - Painter, Party-Balloon-Animal-Person, or, when it comes to it, Walmart) Business/Website what-have-you, and they have "Good/Service" for "Cost" - Just because I turn up with the money, they are under no obligation to enter into a contract with me.


Now, most of the time, they would, they're in the business of swapping X for my bags with dollar signs on the side of them - but if they choose not to, there is not much I can do about it - nor would I want to - I also am in the business of swapping my skills and products for money - If you rock up to my house and say "Here's $120, come to my house for an hour and fix my VCR" I'll tell you to bugger off.

I also exercise professional decisions - Say someone wants me to do safety testing on all their appliances, and they ask me to use a certain tag - I will say "No, these are the tags I use, I have selected them for their durability, adhesive properties, and legibility, this is what I will be putting on your appliances if you engage my services"

They can say "I'm the customer" and I will reply "Feel free to take your business elsewhere"

How many businesses have "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" ? signs out the front? (I'm semi-genuinely interested, maybe this is just a local thing :huh: ) - In any case, it is a business exercising their right not to trade with you on wholly arbitrary grounds.





(There is a different set of rules for folks in the business of Emergency Services, and Education, they don't have to right to refuse service, which is why they get titles like "Public Servant" and everyone loves them )

My local bakery refused to sell me a blowjob even though I specifically requested one. I am furious they are discriminating against my sexuality and am looking forward to suing them.