CyclopsRock
Member
No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.
From the OP:
... Doesn't that prove it is about the cake? Or, rather, they are claiming that.
No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.
From the OP:
No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.
From the OP:
But your analogy is wrong too. They aren't refusing to serve gay people. They are refusing to make a certain cake. They would deny making that cake no matter what the client's sexuality is.This is a dumb analogy, as someone else has already pointed out. If you only make chocolate cakes, then no, you can't be forced to make a cake you can't make. None of this has any bearing on what we're discussing.
If you made two flavors of cakes, but would only sell your white cakes to white people, then you'd be breaking the law, because you're denying part of your existing service to people based on race, which is a protected class.
If you have a service, you can't deny part or all of that service to someone based on discrimination against a protected class. You may -- or may not -- depending on the locality and what a judge thinks, be able to deny based on the political message embedded in the cake.
If it were a straight couple requesting the exact same cake, would that make any difference?
Why are bakeries getting targeted like this lol. Do people intentionally go to these Christian bakeries and tell them to make something they know they will refuse to make just to give them bad publicity?
It just sounds so weird.
That all seems relatively arbitrary. I appreciate you said it's "intuitive" etc, but that's not really a justifiable basis for a law or set of rights.
I mean, does the work that a print shop engages in count as on commission work as well if all they're doing is printing the files they're provided? The organization didn't tell them "artistically realizes this for us", they provided an image and said "put this on a cake"I think this bears repeating, but we need to be very clear on this. They are not refusing service. They are refusing a commission.
You can always refuse a commission, for any reason. It could be you don't feel qualified to do it, it's too expensive to produce, if you don't have time, or if you don't agree with its message.
They don't owe anyone an explanation and all the analogies I've seen in this thread aren't very accurate.
If they refused to sell any of the cakes they have in their store to the gay couple because it would be used in a gay wedding, then we'd have a case for discrimination.
I feel like they fucked up by actually expressing their views on the issue. They simply could have said that they are declining the cake on the basis that it's using trademarked characters to promote without consent. QueerSpace wouldn't have had a case against them then.
I don't know much about them (QueerSpace) but I noticed they're referred to as a pressure group. Is it common for them to go after people? Seems odd a paper would label them as such unless the Guardian is known for any biases (which I am unaware of).
Why are bakeries getting targeted like this lol. Do people intentionally go to these Christian bakeries and tell them to make something they know they will refuse to make just to give them bad publicity?
It just sounds so weird.
I mean, does the work that a print shop engages in count as on commission work as well if all they're doing is printing the files they're provided? The organization didn't tell them "artistically realizes this for us", they provided an image and said "put this on a cake"
Better question for me is why anybody would order any bakery item from any part of Ireland. Jesus, do you want to actually eat it or what?
No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.
From the OP:
In their online statement, the company's general manager, Daniel McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
Well what's worse?
Telling people they won't get their cake?
Or suing people for their religious beliefs?
I honestly don't see where the outrage comes in to play. Smells like hyperbole to me.
It's not like they said "we don't serve queers."
What am I missing, that has caused a 5 page discussion to break out?
And I figured that too... but it's one thing when it's on a five year old's birthday cake. It's another when it's promoting what can be seen as a political statement. I'd imagine bakeries get a list of things those characters can and cannot be used on since you can buy licensed decals.I have a feeling there were probably a bunch of cakes on display showing plenty of trademarked characters already.
I don't get it.
Bigots? Yes. Tolerating intolerance is dumb.
In this case? The former.
Would you think the same if they refused to make a cake with a message about racial equality? My problem with this mindset is that it reinforces the idea that it's okay to personally oppose equality (there's a word for people who do that). In the end I think they shouldn't sue. I'd just make it public and find another bakery.calling them bigots implies that they hate, fear or distrust homosexuals. I would posit, you don't have enough information to make this claim. Nor can you simply call them bigots because they are Christian and disagree with gay marriage. Are there Christians who hate gay people simply because they are gay? Sure. That doesnt mean they all do.
There are several reasons I would say you could easily defend not making this cake:
1) bert and ernie arent official gay
2) the design is hideous
last and certainly not least
3) a business cannot be forced to make any design just because someone brings it to them.
For me its not a gay rights issue, or bigotry issue or anything, I believe a business has the right to not do a design for any reason. Now, if they said we're not going to do the design because you're gay, thats completely different issue.
I was going to say, that seems a completely unfair accusation to make without any evidence that was their intention. They got that same cake made elsewhere, so it's not as though it was being made without a seeming purpose.Wat...
They were just looking to start something with that cake.
That makes it pretty clear this was about the cake and not the people.
Edit: that first things not fair to say. If they knew this was a Christian bakery and went in with that as opposed to another bakery, that was kind of a dick move, if not....
In this case? The former.
They're refusing to make the cake becasue they're homophobic. That's why the discussion broke out.
Yeah, I have evangelical Christians in my family that love me, but believe I am going to hell for not believing. They don't think I'm evil. They just have a "It's God's will" attitude about it.Don't you think you're being kind of irrational about all this? And religious and homophobic aren't the same thing. They didn't kick the people out of the shop, they weren't mean to them, they just didn't want to make a specific cake that went against their beliefs.
With the sequence of events that are happening currently, I reckon even if they did say "we're not available to make this cake", the people at Queerspace would have made damn well sure that Asher's made the headlines anyway.I don't understand why these bakeries can't just say "we're not available to make this cake" and leave it at that. It's literally a world of difference between that and "we're not going to do this because you're gay".
Don't you think you're being kind of irrational about all this? And religious and homophobic aren't the same thing. They didn't kick the people out of the shop, they weren't mean to them, they just didn't want to make a specific cake that went against their beliefs.
Not a good news week for Northern Ireland. First that girl who sucked 24 dicks for a drink and now this. Whilst I do believe the bakery have they right to refuse they are still a bunch of cunts.
The company statement they released claimed the issue was the logo of QueerSpace, no mention of Burt and Ernie or the text which said Support Gay Marriage.Don't you think you're being kind of irrational about all this? And religious and homophobic aren't the same thing. They didn't kick the people out of the shop, they weren't mean to them, they just didn't want to make a specific cake that went against their beliefs.
Don't you think you're being kind of irrational about all this? And religious and homophobic aren't the same thing. They didn't kick the people out of the shop, they weren't mean to them, they just didn't want to make a specific cake that went against their beliefs.
Cunts who make a killer range of sausage rolls and pies, I can live with this.Not a good news week for Northern Ireland. First that girl who sucked 24 dicks for a drink and now this. Whilst I do believe the bakery have they right to refuse they are still a bunch of cunts.
No, they very explicitly do not have that absolute legal right. They can only refuse service so long as they are not doing so because the customer is a protected class. The question of whether this situation falls under that is what's of debate in this thread.Private companies have the right the refuse service for any reason.
This business will go sour of it's own accord I think. And I sorta hope so. They can definitely make their own decisions because it's their business. But if their decision is to discriminate, they don't really get any sympathy from me if their business goes under :|.
Don't you think you're being kind of irrational about all this? And religious and homophobic aren't the same thing. They didn't kick the people out of the shop, they weren't mean to them, they just didn't want to make a specific cake that went against their beliefs.
No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.
From the OP:
In their online statement, the company's general manager, Daniel McArthur said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
With the sequence of events that are happening currently, I reckon even if they did say "we're not available to make this cake", the people at Queerspace would have made damn well sure that Asher's made the headlines anyway.
Politely say "our workload is too great to make your cake".
End of discussion. Couple moves on to another bakery, bakery treats customers with dignity and remain unmolested by the whip of public opinion in return. Everyone wins.
If they're religion says being gay is wrong, and they choose to believe that, then yes, they are homophobic. In this case the cake that went against their beliefs was one pushing for basic human rights.
Would you also have no problem if they refused to make a cake that said interracial marriage is OK because it goes against their beliefs?
Private companies have the right the refuse service for any reason.
If they're religion says being gay is wrong, and they choose to believe that, then yes, they are homophobic. In this case the cake that went against their beliefs was one pushing for basic human rights.
Would you also have no problem if they refused to make a cake that said interracial marriage is OK because it goes against their beliefs?