Hypocrisy of the 'Gay Wedding Cake' Case Ruling

Don't businesses have the right to refuse service to any one they choose? Im not side -ing by any means but I think its a bit odd that some one would go to all that trouble to get a cake and...I don't think its about the cake but about the attention in which case I say every dog has his day and spotlight only last 15 minuts.
I am not gay nor homosexual, I do support any one in their decision to love another heart regardless of label, at the same time hey not every one is like me, bisnesses too. duhh! wouldn't there be some treading wisely here in stead of just well yuou have to and bring out some form of argument, that's what I want on my wedding memories, lots of strangers in my Kool-Aid. not my choice but I see it was more of the decisions than the day, to me it seems I should say.
ps this would have been a great, GREAT time to fins a suitable establishment that caters to said request and help build their cause rather than, my own words now, tare it down every change they get. maybe? just me I try to find solutions often my bad lol
EDIT* seems like now a days we are worried about faults and whos gunna pay wayyyyy to often hu...just my hypo thesis

Wescli Wardest wrote:

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.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the great addition that speech is free *within reason*:

Section 1 of the Charter:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Sure it makes things less black and white, but it leaves us to question and examine situations as they happen.

Hmmm cake.

Yep lets stop bickering and lets have some cake , because some have to eat the cake they bake

Adder wrote: Hmmm cake.

Yep lets stop bickering and lets have some cake , because some have to eat the cake they bake

It better be gluten free vegan cake, or I'll have you for discrimination

JamesSand wrote:

Yep lets stop bickering and lets have some cake , because some have to eat the cake they bake

It better be gluten free vegan cake, or I'll have you for discrimination

ROTFL Discrimination? She'll get attempted murder and hate crime against the gluten intolerant. Life sentence.

I am a strong supporter for LGBT+ rights and feel there is a long way to go. I also think this issue is more complex than the cake question. If I wanted a cake for my gay wedding, do I think I should be able to demand a cake from any bakery I want, no matter what the sincere religious beliefs of the family owners may be? No. I don't want to compel anyone to do that, and as Alexandre suggested, I don't want my patronage to go to a business that would refuse to serve me anyway.

The complexity of the issue emerges when the details of the situation change. Suppose there is only one bakery in town. Should I be denied access to a wedding cake altogether? That's a slightly different question, but for me, the answer is still that the bakers should not be forced to serve me. I want them to have their individual freedoms more than I want hypothetical cake.

Suppose further, however, that the baker is actually the only doctor in town, and my new husband has been seriously injured. Should the devout doctor be allowed to deny me visitation rights that a heterosexual spouse would get? Or should a county clerk be allowed to refuse to issue us a marriage license in the first place? Is a person's right to refuse service determined by how essential their services are? If so, who determines how essential your job is? Is your job too important for you to have religious freedom?

I agree with others who think this is difficult to legislate. I think the best remedy is a lot of love and empathy on all sides of the issue, and a willingness to find the good in others who disagree with us.

Suppose further, however, that the baker is actually the only doctor in town, and my new husband has been seriously injured. Should the devout doctor be allowed to deny me visitation rights that a heterosexual spouse would get? Or should a county clerk be allowed to refuse to issue us a marriage license in the first place? Is a person's right to refuse service determined by how essential their services are? If so, who determines how essential your job is? Is your job too important for you to have religious freedom?

It might just be from watching too much M*A*S*H, but I've always assumed doctors take the hippocratic oath


As for the rest - I think your premise is out - The never refused to bake a cake because he was gay (or knew someone who was guy, or owned a collectors edition copy of every madonna album, or whatever) they refused to write a certain message.



Tangent (I thought of this from your visitation comment) -
Every time I take my (female) partner to the doctors office with an injury (she's just not that good at riding bikes...) I am asked to leave the room so they can ask her if I abused her.

It more than irritates me, but that's their policy, and somehow I don't think punching the nurse in the throat for the implication would help my position

Does anyone else get this? (by "else" I mean females with male partners, males with male partners, females with female partners, or toasters with dolphin partners, or anyone with a pet?)




Really, really tangential, bordering on completely unrelated -

LGBT+

Let's say I'm one of the one that comes after the "T" (in the + selection)

Why the hell do the LGBs & Ts get priority and acknowledgment?

(I don't want an answer, my point is "it's a goddamn rabbit hole")

I think I should be able to demand a cake from any bakery I want

They didn’t refuse to sell the cake. They didn’t want to write the message on the cake. But, business owners reserve the right to refuse service. Which in most cases is something we want. Not selling something dangerous to someone that looks unstable. Not serving another drink to someone that appears to have had too many already. Or just refusing to sell something to someone that comes in being a completely disagreeable person. There is no law that says I “have” to sell anyone anything. And if someone comes in demanding something of me they are likely to meet resistance for no other reason that it is my nature to resist when someone does that to me. There are laws against discrimination. But just refusing to sell something is not discrimination.

If the owner would have refused to sell them a cake, I would think that it was discrimination. And then it would be a tricky thing to resolve because religious freedom and discrimination would be weighed against each other. But they refused to place the message that was wanted on the cake. Which is part of freedom of speech as well as religious freedom. But more importantly, they didn't refuse because of discrimination but for not being in support of the message. Which is a fine line, but still a difference.

Playing devil’s advocate :evil: here… what if I were to go into a bakery owned by LGBT+ and demand a cake; and, asked them to write on it, Gay Weddings are Evil. I would think they would be willing to sell me the cake but not willing to write the message on it if for no other reason than they view it as hate speech. And I would think that we would be expected to respect their opinion and not try to force them to write something on a cake that went against their belief and life style.

Wescli Wardest wrote: If the owner would have refused to sell them a cake, I would think that it was discrimination. And then it would be a tricky thing to resolve because religious freedom and discrimination would be weighed against each other. But they refused to place the message that was wanted on the cake. Which is part of freedom of speech as well as religious freedom. But more importantly, they didn't refuse because of discrimination but for not being in support of the message. Which is a fine line, but still a difference.

First, the bold line above is mine for emphasis. This is another area up for interpretation. The Freedom of Speech and Religion protected by the U.S. Constitution are only protected in the U.S. While many other countries have similar protections, there are many that don't, or protect these rights to varying degrees. Even in the U.S., the Constitution only protects citizens from laws enacted to deny these rights. It doesn't stop them from suing each other in civil court. The First amendment protects people from the government, not from each other. Your Freedom of Religion does not grant you, nor deny you, a reason to deny another of their Freedom of Speech. People throw the Bill of Rights around as support for their views, but often forget what it actually says.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Playing devil’s advocate :evil: here… what if I were to go into a bakery owned by LGBT+ and demand a cake; and, asked them to write on it, Gay Weddings are Evil. I would think they would be willing to sell me the cake but not willing to write the message on it if for no other reason than they view it as hate speech. And I would think that we would be expected to respect their opinion and not try to force them to write something on a cake that went against their belief and life style.

Again, emphasis above is mine. Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment and is illegal. Even if the baker agreed to put it on the cake, the person ordering it could potentially face criminal charges if someone complained.