Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Why care so much about the government forcing a business to do anything? This isn't the real issue here. This is the legal system forcing someone to make a political statement they do not agree with.

Individuals were stripped off some of their most fundamental rights here.

To judge a paying customer because they don't worship your god or define marriage the way you do is not only pretentious, but also bad business.

One of the many attractions of having your own business, is the right to run it badly :laugh:




(I think there is a law somewhere that if you've declared bankrupty on your business 3 times, you get a "ban" and the G-mint won't let you register new businesses. Or words to that effect)

ren wrote: Why care so much about the government forcing a business to do anything? This isn't the real issue here. This is the legal system forcing someone to make a political statement they do not agree with.

Individuals were stripped off some of their most fundamental rights here.

You are right here , we can divert as much as we want about the fact that it is bad bussiness strategy , or that its a "dick" move , but the essential fact is indeed that a trader of a food product is forced to make a policital statement that is against their own convictions. In my country for instance the can tell a council member to resign when he does not want to marry a gay couple and you know when you become one you have to marry everyone. Even if Mayonaise wants to marry Tomatosaus , its non of your bussiness , and its not bussiness.

But to ask a baker who has always been willing to serve everyone and bake bread and cakes , and force him to make a statement on a cake about something that is not allowed in his country is not only asking him to go against his conviction but also a violation of his free rights as a trader.

MartaLina wrote: But to ask a baker who has always been willing to serve everyone and bake bread and cakes , and force him to make a statement on a cake about something that is not allowed in his country is not only asking him to go against his conviction but also a violation of his free rights as a trader.

But is the baker making a statement? Isn't the client paying the baker to make cake for them to make their statement... meaning its the clients statement. The only statement the baker makes is the quality of the work, not the client's instructions. Otherwise they'd bake and ice their own cake, but because the baker's service is meeting the client request they outsource the work for their own wedding.

A baker might choose to use a clients job to make a statement about their own work, but not every cake is going to be a statement worth making by the baker. Unless the baker only makes cakes which say something they want to say - which gives a new definition to working for oneself
:lol: :S

Adder wrote:

MartaLina wrote: But to ask a baker who has always been willing to serve everyone and bake bread and cakes , and force him to make a statement on a cake about something that is not allowed in his country is not only asking him to go against his conviction but also a violation of his free rights as a trader.

But is the baker making a statement? Isn't the client paying the baker to make cake for them to make their statement... meaning its the clients statement. The only statement the baker makes is the quality of the work, not the client's instructions. Otherwise they'd bake and ice their own cake, but because the baker's service is meeting the client request they outsource the work for their own wedding.

A baker might choose to use a clients job to make a statement about their own work, but not every cake is going to be a statement worth making by the baker. Unless the baker only makes cakes which say something they want to say - which gives a new definition to working for oneself
:lol: :S

Good point ! We give the baker to much power of what he can stand for , the only thing he should be worried about though is to make nice tasting products

MartaLina wrote:

Adder wrote:

MartaLina wrote: But to ask a baker who has always been willing to serve everyone and bake bread and cakes , and force him to make a statement on a cake about something that is not allowed in his country is not only asking him to go against his conviction but also a violation of his free rights as a trader.

But is the baker making a statement? Isn't the client paying the baker to make cake for them to make their statement... meaning its the clients statement. The only statement the baker makes is the quality of the work, not the client's instructions. Otherwise they'd bake and ice their own cake, but because the baker's service is meeting the client request they outsource the work for their own wedding.

A baker might choose to use a clients job to make a statement about their own work, but not every cake is going to be a statement worth making by the baker. Unless the baker only makes cakes which say something they want to say - which gives a new definition to working for oneself
:lol: :S

Good point ! We give the baker to much power of what he can stand for , the only thing he should be worried about though is to make nice tasting products

Hehe, well yea, if the baker puts 'happy birthday' on Ms Adder's cake for me then I hope she thinks the sentiment is from me! It is what I paid for afterall!

Let’s pretend that I went into a butcher’s shop and ask for pork sausage. The Butcher then proceeded to inform me that it was a kosher butcher’s shop and that because of religious reasons he could not give me any pork product. :ohmy:

Should I be able to go and get the legal system or government to force this individual to sell me pork sausage? :blink:

Do I have some legal right to pork sausage that supersedes the right of the practitioner to religious freedom? :silly:

Some might think that it is a dick move to deny me my sausage.
I would argue that it is a far more dick move to deny that individual the right to practice what they believe as a part of their religion. And it is an egregious crime against our (US) constitution for a court to force an individual to abandon their religious beliefs; especially for a monetary exchange that could have been completed at any myriad of other establishments. :pinch: :whistle: :laugh:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Some might think that it is a dick move to deny me my sausage.

We need a Smiley that laughs and cries, at the same time....

I would argue that it is a far more dick move to deny that individual the right to practice what they believe as a part of their religion. And it is an egregious crime against our (US) constitution for a court to force an individual to abandon their religious beliefs; especially for a monetary exchange that could have been completed at any myriad of other establishments. :pinch: :whistle: :laugh:

I would agree, except being a pagan I've discovered many laws which are out of touch with many religious practices, like the fact one cannot not legally so much as pick up a feather from a bird of prey (living or dead) within the states without fear of being slapped with a rather large fine and possible prison time. Found an owl last week, rigor mortis hadn't even set in. Imagine my disappointment when I found out i could not even pick up and use any parts of an animal which has become one of my treasured spirit totems. Apologies the possible derail, but this law is ridiculous and was created in attempts to eradicate native american culture including their spiritual beliefs...

Granted there is one way to procure items from a bird of prey legally, but the loopholes and the process is so drawn out to the point that all but the most stubborn of individuals will quit before getting close to obtaining a permit.

It isn't a derail, Zenchi. Actually, this goes right to the heart of the matter.

Before talking about jurisprudence (law) or the rights of individuals that the law is - in theory - there to defend, we first have to examine the values upon which both notions are established. The bedrock of ethics is value judgements, and these are set over and against mere representational value, such as monetary value (which is a representation of representation).

In this case, we are not talking about a typical reciprocity relationship - as is commerce. The bakery would have gladly sold him a cake - even a wedding cake -, for that is the business they conduct. There was no dispute - and there still isn't - over the material or commercial "value" of the cake.

Whereas it is generally admitted that there are inalienable "rights", it is still unclear whose got violated. In keeping with the obligations to action or inaction according to the disputed rights, it is not particularly evident where that obligation falls. Certainly, businesses are somewhat for making a profit, but they are primarily for providing a service as a means to profit and not merely making a profit any way they can. I'm not sure how much positive and negative rights can enter into the arguments. The Right to Freedom of Speech, for instance not only assures that one may not impinge upon another's right to expression, but it also means that one must not be obliged to say something contrary to one's fundamental values -- whether they are paid for it or not.

So, what we have here is a conflict of moral/ethical values set over against merely representational value ones. The inalienable rights of no one were breached, for the bakery did not say that the two men must not marry one another (though they perhaps would have liked to), no one's life nor liberty was compromised. As I told Adder this morning on this topic :

[09:10:25] Alexandre Orion: one would think that in a business-place, it would be the commercial value (exchange value of money), that would take precedence
[09:10:49] Alexandre Orion: but it was other values that brought about this case
[09:11:49] Alexandre Orion: religious and ethical values over-rode the commercial value
[09:12:24] Alexandre Orion: and in absolutely none of this has been brought up the material or the symbolic value of the bloody cake

The law probably ought to be re-examined. What I feel happened here is that there was a rather heavy public-opinion (doxa) interpretations of "discrimination" (after all, the bakery did not refuse him service, but only a "particular" service) which in the end elevated monetary exchange value over all others. This is perilous, as jurisprudence really ought to rise above the banality of doxa (public opinion/popular justice), and if legislation makes it permissible to demand things of people that are contrary to their morals in exchange for money - and illegitimate for them to refuse -, then we have indeed exalted reciprocity over conviviality, and aspired from being merely a free-market, consumer society into an altogether mercenary one.

I also am a gay man. But if ever I would marry, I do not feel that I would want our wedding cake made by homophobes -- no matter how many years I'd been getting my croissants from them. Nor would I feel morally justified in making them do.

Alexandre Orion wrote: So, what we have here is a conflict of moral/ethical values set over against merely representational value ones. The inalienable rights of no one were breached, for the bakery did not say that the two men must not marry one another (though they perhaps would have liked to), no one's life nor liberty was compromised.

if legislation makes it permissible to demand things of people that are contrary to their morals in exchange for money - and illegitimate for them to refuse -, then we have indeed exalted reciprocity over conviviality, and aspired from being merely a free-market, consumer society into an altogether mercenary one.

Exactly this…

It is one thing for the government to regulate free speech, as in saying that we can’t scream “FIRE” in a crowded theater because it is dangerous.

It is another thing in entirety to declare what we “have ” to say.