Support NeoGAF

[markot]

There is a difference between refusing to service a person and refusing to fulfill a particular request. A plumber can go to any house, gay, straight, black, white, whatever, see the request, and determine it's not worth doing. Maybe the plumber is asked to make the faucets look like floppy penises or whatever and determines the work isn't worth it. Maybe their bathroom is a complete clusterfuck and refused to fulfill that order because it's not worth it. He's not a slave to demands. He can say no to a request.

How are you even comparing to two? A plumber is a plumber. Those demands are 'unreasonable'. These demands are 'part of what they do as a business'.

There is nothing unreasonable about their design for the cake other then 'omg gheeeeeeeeeey!'. Thats descrimination.

 

[PJV3]

I think a private business should be able to discriminate for any reason as long as something like health is not involved. I wouldn't shop there and I would hope they go out of business, but I don't think you should be able to force someone to provide a non vital service

Only if you they sell their products exclusively through Bigots weekly magazine, once you sell on the high street to the general public, you have to fit in with what society wants.

 

[elrechazado]

I think there's quite a few posts in here conflating "refusing to serve gays" and "refusing to make a specific cake".

If I wanted a cake with the text "Norn Irn is shit, England 4eva" and they refused to make it, I wouldn't claim that they were "refusing to serve the English".

If I went in the shop and ordered a generic cake and said "I'm English, by the way", and they refused to serve me, then I'd make that claim. As far as I can tell, an analogous thing hasn't happened here.

This

 

[Triggerhappytel]

so if i have a bakery, and a nazi wants a swastikacake, i have to make it for them?
if they wan't a giant penis in form of a cake i have to make it for them?

its the bakery's loss in proift, just go to another one.

No-one would expect the bakery to have to make a cake or product that was openly offensive, and the Equality Commission would not take it seriously.

 

[Poona]

Did Sesame St ever out them or is this someone asking for a cake depicting them as such?

No. Sesame Street has only ever said they're friends.

Might as well couple up the two old guys in the muppets as well since they hang together even more than Bert & Ernie.

 

[markot]

Can the baker refuse to make a swastika cake? A KKK cake? A "I'm so happy 9/11 happened!" cake? All of these views are legal to have because thoughts alone are not crimes in the US.

Refusing a design isn't the same as refusing to serve a person.

Yes it is. If they refused to make an inter racial marriage cake cause they dont like inter racial marriage, is that ok? Theyre refusing service. Its pretty clear. Their service is that they make cakes, theyre refusing it because gay.

I dont think a baker should refuse anything. Theyre a business open to the public. If its legal then whats the problem? "It makes me feel bad?" Well then stop offering CUSTOM CAKESSSSSSSSSS.

 

[Two Words]

How are you even comparing to two? A plumber is a plumber. Those demands are 'unreasonable'. These demands are 'part of what they do as a business'.

There is nothing unreasonable about their design for the cake other then 'omg gheeeeeeeeeey!'. Thats descrimination.

Where is the line? If you are going to say a business MUST fulfill that design and can refuse this one, how do you determine that? What if somebody wants a cake that depicts a classroom of kids being assaulted by a dangerous man? Can they not refuse that too? If they can, what makes that different from a gay marriage cake from a legal standpoint? It's not enough to simply say "gay marriage is ok and assaulting children isn't."

 

[GeordieMark]

How are you even comparing to two? A plumber is a plumber. Those demands are 'unreasonable'. These demands are 'part of what they do as a business'.

There is nothing unreasonable about their design for the cake other then 'omg gheeeeeeeeeey!'. Thats descrimination.

But it's not 'gheeeeey!', it's gay marriage the baker is uncomfortable with because of his religion.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think there's quite a few posts in here conflating "refusing to serve gays" and "refusing to make a specific cake".

If I wanted a cake with the text "Norn Irn is shit, England 4eva" and they refused to make it, I wouldn't claim that they were "refusing to serve the English".

If I went in the shop and ordered a generic cake and said "I'm English, by the way", and they refused to serve me, then I'd make that claim. As far as I can tell, an analogous thing hasn't happened here.

But by using those two examples you're drawing a distinction between messages that are "offensive" and those that are not, and placing the "some people are gay and not ashamed of this fact" in the offensive category. Which we as a society are finally starting to have a problem with.

Seriously, why the hell are people drawing analogies to putting goddamn swastikas on cakes? It would be one thing if they were arguing for the whole "the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse anyone" line of argument, but people are arguing for the bakery's right to choose what they do and don't make by drawing comparisons between gay marriage and hate speech

 

[blame space]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jNGa89pOA8

come to think of it i don't think I've seen one gay marriage on sesame street

 

[Buzzati]

yes if they thought I was gay and refused to make me any cake. But it seems that it is just this one particular cake. If they refused to serve the customer anything at all then it would be discriminatory.

I think we'd have to look into the specifics of discriminatory laws - namely those laws that impact 'designs' or 'creative' commissions. I don't know if the design is taken into account as an informed decision of the person they are serving, or if it is completely separate.

 

[GingerNathan]

The objection was based on the Queerspace logo not the Burt and Ernie design (that's what I read on the Telegraph website), is there any grounds to be able to refuse creating a logo for political group whose agenda/campaign the craftsman doesn't agree with?

 

[Two Words]

Yes it is. If they refused to make an inter racial marriage cake cause they dont like inter racial marriage, is that ok? Theyre refusing service. Its pretty clear. Their service is that they make cakes, theyre refusing it because gay.

I dont think a baker should refuse anything. Theyre a business open to the public. If its legal then whats the problem? "It makes me feel bad?" Well then stop offering CUSTOM CAKESSSSSSSSSS.

So you think bakers should have to, by law, fulfill every order. Nazi cakes, offensive 9-11 cakes, dipictions of gross acts of violence and sexual assault?

No, that's not how it works, at least I can tell for sure it doesn't in America. You can't say "I refuse to serve you because you are X race" or whatever in Anerica. But you can say "I refuse to make this particular design for whatever reason I want. Pick another design."

 

[Red Arremer]

If its legal then whats the problem?

Well in this particular case, gay marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland.

 

[The Technomancer]

So you think bakers should have to, by law, fulfill every order. Nazi cakes, offensive 9-11 cakes, dipictions of gross acts of violence and sexual assault?

None of these things are gay marriage. Jesus christ

 

[Mastadon]

But it's not 'gheeeeey!', it's gay marriage the baker is uncomfortable with because of his religion.

Well thankfully for society, it has been well established that religious views do not trump the rights of other people.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But by using those two examples you're drawing a distinction between messages that are "offensive" and those that are not, and placing the "some people are gay and not ashamed of this fact" in the offensive category. Which we as a society are finally starting to have a problem with.

Seriously, why the hell are people drawing analogies to putting goddamn swastikas on cakes? It would be one thing if they were arguing for the whole "the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse anyone" line of argument, but people are arguing for the bakery's right to choose what they do and don't make by drawing comparisons between gay marriage and hate speech

I'm sure you do understand the distinction, because it's been explained a few times before, but it boils down to whether or not a business is obligated to support causes that it disagrees with (in this case, the legalisation of gay marriage group). As before, change Swastikas for Sinn Fein (who are a massively contestable but entirely legitimate political party in Northern Ireland) if it makes it easier, but the point is largely the same.

 

[titusandronicus]

Not trying to be contentious, but why is this different than a tattoo artist refusing to do a design because of a message it conveys?

Also 'wedding cake' is misleading. It was made for an anti-homophobia and transophobia event, hosted by a group called Queerspace. There were also prominet gay rights campainers and politcians there. Ashers is known as a Christian company so this may have been a stunt.

And before anyone brands me as a homophobe, I think it is ridiculous that a lot of unionists/loyalists want to be part of the UK but don't want the same equality laws.

 

[UncleSporky]

But by using those two examples you're drawing a distinction between messages that are "offensive" and those that are not, and placing the "some people are gay and not ashamed of this fact" in the offensive category. Which we as a society are finally starting to have a problem with.

Seriously, why the hell are people drawing analogies to putting goddamn swastikas on cakes? It would be one thing if they were arguing for the whole "the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse anyone" line of argument, but people are arguing for the bakery's right to choose what they do and don't make by drawing comparisons between gay marriage and hate speech

Then there should be no comparison.

A person walks into a cake shop and says "make me a cake with a thing on it." The shop says sorry, we won't make a cake with that thing. Is this always ok, never ok, or is there some grey area in the middle?

 

[gerg]

Well, being in a Nazi-affiliated organisation isn't illegal in and of itself (Though obviously some of their activities could be) and nor is advertising it, so I'm not sure where the distinction lies. The point, surely, is that one shouldn't be obligated to use their labour to further the aims of something they disagree with, whether it's a political party, support of a particular policy, support of a certain football team even. Whether the guy is right to oppose it is, really, neither here nor there (and I'd point out that gay marriage isn't even legal in Northern Ireland).

I see your point, and think that a lot of what you're saying makes sense, but something doesn't sit well with my intuition. But, then again, maybe that means my intuition is wrong.

I figure, though, that the B&B owners I mentioned earlier could equally argue that they shouldn't have to use their labour (in washing sheets, preparing food, and so on) to further the aims of something they disagree with (two members of the same sex happily living together and having sex before marriage). IMO, the distinction lies in whether or not we would consider it reasonable to disagree with that, to a sufficient degree upon which one is no longer obliged to honour requests for services relating to that.

 

[Staab]

I don't see the problem if they're denying a request for a special cake and actually not denying service to the people who are gay and getting married.
They're absolutely not refusing them service, they're refusing to do a particular service.

If you ask a bakery to bake a shit-based cake because you love shit, they will tell you no (most of them anyway), that doesn't mean they won't sell you their "Millefeuille" and are discriminating, they're simply denying to do a particular service.

In any reasonable world, they could've just ordered the cake if they like their products and made the "sign/label" themselves or at another place... but no, reason is not trendy anymore.

 

[GeordieMark]

Well thankfully for society, it has been well established that religious views do not trump the rights of other people.

Is it a right to have whatever cake you want baked?

 

[Two Words]

None of these things are gay marriage. Jesus christ

Do you not recognize any change in law to what a business can and cannot refuse to design will go beyond gay marriage? It's not like a law maker can write into law "A business can refuse to design any creation for a client, except for things positively messaging gay marriage."

 

[CyclopsRock]

I guess maybe the distinction lies between furthering the aims of something they disagree with and that something itself? I'm not sure.

I figure, though, that the B&B owners I mentioned earlier could equally argue that they shouldn't have to use their labour (in washing sheets, preparing food, and so on) to further the aims of something they disagree with (two members of the same sex happily living together and having sex before marriage).

They could, and did. It's a bit different though, since this cake was specifically for a pressure group with explicit aims (which, presumably, the bakery's owner disagreed with) rather than the gay couple with the B&B who's "aims" didn't actually extend beyond the service potentially being supplied.

 

[Faiz]

So you think bakers should have to, by law, fulfill every order. Nazi cakes, offensive 9-11 cakes, dipictions of gross acts of violence and sexual assault?

No, that's not how it works, at least I can tell for sure it doesn't in America. You can't say "I refuse to serve you because you are X race" or whatever in Anerica. But you can say "I refuse to make this particular design for whatever reason I want. Pick another design."

And yet several bakeries in America haven faced similar legal problems.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm sure you do understand the distinction, because it's been explained a few times before, but it boils down to whether or not a business is obligated to support causes that it disagrees with (in this case, the legalisation of gay marriage group). As before, change Swastikas for Sinn Fein (who are a massively contestable but entirely legitimate political party in Northern Ireland) if it makes it easier, but the point is largely the same.

What is "support" here? If the business had made the cake would that be taken as an endorsement of the cause by the business? I don't think so. Fulfilling an order does not constitute an expression of support.

And yes, there is a grey area here. As others have mentioned, if the cake was depicting a black man and the bakery had a "problem" with that this discussion would probably be very different. If it literally was a swastika on the other hand, most people would probably be on the bakery's side. Its something that's culturally defined, and I am doing my damnedest to push the cultural definition in a direction thats accepting of homosexuality

 

[gerg]

They could, and did. It's a bit different though, since this cake was specifically for a pressure group with explicit aims (which, presumably, the bakery's owner disagreed with) rather than the gay couple with the B&B who's "aims" didn't actually extend beyond the service potentially being supplied.

True. The gay couple in this instance could still receive a cake with other message on it.

 

[Two Words]

And yet several bakeries in America haven faced similar legal problems.

Like?

 

[damisa]

Does a plumber have the right to not fix a toilet in a house owned by a married gay couple?

I don't know what the law says, but they should not be forced to. They will lose the business of gay couples and others who support equality, and will likely go out of business. They should have the right to make that decision though

 

[THRILLH0]

There's a huge difference between refusing to decorate a cake in a fashion that celebrates gay marriage and refusing to serve a gay couple period. If an atheist asked them do bake a cake that said "Jesus is a myth" wouldn't they be within their rights to say no?

Wouldn't this be copyright infringement anyway?

Why bother posting?

 

[Jenenser]

No-one would expect the bakery to have to make a cake or product that was openly offensive, and the Equality Commission would not take it seriously.

the difference is that the bakery views the cake as offensive as it is a christian based bakery (atleast thats what i read here).
forcing someone to do something he doesn't aprove of is still wrong (shouldn't matter how biggoted the view is)

for them a cake with a bert and ernie figurine on top is the same as a swastika cake for you and me.

that said, i am not a christian, nor do i have a problem with gay people. (before i get flack for anything here)

news that i seen for the first time now:

The objection was based on the Queerspace logo not the Burt and Ernie design (that's what I read on the Telegraph website), is there any grounds to be able to refuse creating a logo for political group whose agenda/campaign the craftsman doesn't agree with?

so ernie and bert wasn't the problem.

 

[Platy]

Most discrimination laws are written "cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation" so dening to make a cake BECAUSE it is in favor of gay wedding does fit the bill.

 

[The Technomancer]

the difference is that the bakery views the cake as offensive as it is a christian based bakery (atleast thats what i read here).
forcing someone to do something he doesn't aprove of is still wrong (shouldn't matter how biggoted the view is)

Nope, disagree. We absolutely should be able to call bigots out on their bullshit

 

[Two Words]

What is "support" here? If the business had made the cake would that be taken as an endorsement of the cause by the business? I don't think so. Fulfilling an order does not constitute an expression of support.

And yes, there is a grey area here. As others have mentioned, if the cake was depicting a black man and the bakery had a "problem" with that this discussion would probably be very different. If it literally was a swastika on the other hand, most people would probably be on the bakery's side. Its something that's culturally defined, and I am doing my damnedest to push the cultural definition in a direction thats accepting of homosexuality

Laws don't work that way. You're free to dislike the baker. But you can't write into law "We'll see if we don't like it enough to make it illegal when we get there."

 

[Yrael]

But by using those two examples you're drawing a distinction between messages that are "offensive" and those that are not, and placing the "some people are gay and not ashamed of this fact" in the offensive category. Which we as a society are finally starting to have a problem with.

Seriously, why the hell are people drawing analogies to putting goddamn swastikas on cakes? It would be one thing if they were arguing for the whole "the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse anyone" line of argument, but people are arguing for the bakery's right to choose what they do and don't make by drawing comparisons between gay marriage and hate speech

Yes, this. It's this constant equivalence between being gay/supporting gay rights and hate speech that I'm increasingly tired of. I saw it happening when there was mounting pressure for the CEO of Mozilla to step down after it was found he'd donated money to Proposition 8; some tried to make the case that it's a slippery slope and someone losing their job for being homophobic is like losing their job for being gay (or pro-gay rights). Nope, not really comparable.

 

[titusandronicus]

Some other bakery in Bangor offered to make the cake. So wouldn't they prefer to support a bakery that would want to make their cake/is not homophobic? Vote with your dollar etc.

 

[GingerNathan]

Most discrimination laws are written "cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation" so dening to make a cake BECAUSE it is in favor of gay wedding does fit the bill.

The cake design was denied because of the Queer Space logo, who are pushing for gay marriage (rightly so) in a country where it is currently illegal. Take the logo away they would have made the design. I can't see how they can get prosecuted for discrimination by the NI authorities.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Some other bakery in Bangor offered to make the cake. So wouldn't they prefer to support a bakery that would want to make their cake/is not homophobic? Vote with your dollar etc.

I also imagine that Ashers would be happy to make them a cake, just not the Bert and Ernie one.

 

[Dryk]

"No service for blacks"
Not that easy.

If only the world was still simple enough that people still hung signs over their business detailing how they discriminated. Then there might actually be a chance of long-term consequences for things like this.

 

[Jenenser]

Nope, disagree. We absolutely should be able to call bigots out on their bullshit

ofcourse you can say hes a biggot, he could be the biggest asshole in the world.
its still his buisness.

 

[UncleSporky]

What is "support" here? If the business had made the cake would that be taken as an endorsement of the cause by the business? I don't think so. Fulfilling an order does not constitute an expression of support.

And yes, there is a grey area here. As others have mentioned, if the cake was depicting a black man and the bakery had a "problem" with that this discussion would probably be very different. If it literally was a swastika on the other hand, most people would probably be on the bakery's side. Its something that's culturally defined, and I am doing my damnedest to push the cultural definition in a direction thats accepting of homosexuality

Basically you're mad because you think that people comparing gay marriage with negative things are reinforcing the idea that gay marriage is a negative thing.

They're actually not. They're just saying "these are things that at least one cake shop might decide not to put on a cake, whether that thing should be considered objectionable or not." The what-if can be anything.

Can a shop refuse to make a cake depicting a heterosexual marriage on it, just because they've decided they don't want any trouble at all and aren't depicting anything remotely related to sexual preference on any of their cakes? The only wedding cake they sell has "it is your wedding" printed on it in comic sans. Is that alright?

 

[andymcc]

If only the world was still simple enough that people still hung signs over their business detailing how they discriminated. Then there might actually be a chance of long-term consequences for things like this.

Actually, there was a dress store in the hometown I grew up in that recently hung up a no "Muslim or Transgender Customers Allowed" (or something to that effect) sign on their door. There was a whisper of reaction in the community and they took it down. Wished it would have been reported to the media when it was up.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Eh, they aren't refusing to serve a person. They are refusing to make a certain cake. Why shouldn't they have the right to refuse a certain creation request?

That's a distinction that merely creates a loophole. Don't want to serve a protected class, but can't legally refuse them because of it? Then simply refuse every individual creation request, and you can effectively do just that.

 

[Faiz]

Like?

The main one that comes to mind was a bakery in Indianapolis that declined rainbow themed cupcakes for a gay student organization.

 

[markot]

The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".

"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."

"I would like the outcome of this to be that, any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of their business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that."

1. You dont have a right to refuse service based on any of your beliefs. Offensivity is judged 'by the man on the street' principle. Not 'my god gets angry' principle. You do have the grounds to object to something genuinely offensive. This isnt it. And it isnt judged on a person by person basis.

2. They are refusing service by refusing to make the cake, their service is in cake making, they are refusing to make the cake on religous grounds, theyre discriminating against a gay cake, the sexuality of the person who was trying to make it doesnt even really matter. Theyre discriminating against a class or group of people.

3. Gay marriage is not legal in N Ireland, but its also not offensive in any legal definition. There was nothing offensive in the design of the cake.

4. Running a business according to Christian beliefs? Christ took a vow of poverty and gave food out for free.

5. Why should their religous belief be involved in this at all? Seriously? Why should their religous freedom give them the freedom to discriminate? Why should that freedom be above those of their customers?

 

[THRILLH0]

That's a distinction that merely creates a loophole. Don't want to serve a protected class, but can't legally refuse them because of it? Then simply refuse every individual creation request, and you can effectively do just that.

This is kinda bullshit unless you have reason to believe that they wouldn't serve a gay person a cake of any kind.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Where is the line? If you are going to say a business MUST fulfill that design and can refuse this one, how do you determine that? What if somebody wants a cake that depicts a classroom of kids being assaulted by a dangerous man? Can they not refuse that too? If they can, what makes that different from a gay marriage cake from a legal standpoint? It's not enough to simply say "gay marriage is ok and assaulting children isn't."

Are you fucking equating having two people of the same sex love each other to having a design of a man gunning down children?

Oh wait, I forgot.

SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPERY SLOPE

 

[3Sixty]

[

2. They are refusing service by refusing to make the cake

No, no they're not.

 

[Red Arremer]

I also imagine that Ashers would be happy to make them a cake, just not the Bert and Ernie one.

I'd argue that Ashers would be happy to make them a Bert and Ernie cake, just not one with that Queerspace logo.

That's a distinction that merely creates a loophole. Don't want to serve a protected class, but can't legally refuse them because of it? Then simply refuse every individual creation request, and you can effectively do just that.

So there's only 2 options? One being drawing every possible motif (no matter if you want to depict it or not) the other not offering any custom motifs at all? That seems a little extreme to me.

 

[UncleSporky]

That's a distinction that merely creates a loophole. Don't want to serve a protected class, but can't legally refuse them because of it? Then simply refuse every individual creation request, and you can effectively do just that.

Yep, and that's just fine. If you don't want to serve Jews wearing skullcaps or Muslims wearing burqas, put up a sign that says "no headgear allowed, remove before entering. We reserve the right to refuse service."

And your business will probably suffer as a result, because people totally see you exploiting that loophole. But you have the right.