Support NeoGAF

[Kinyou]

I don't see a difference to this stupid "gotcha" scenario from anti-gay activists http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=977219

A bakery should always be able to refuse specific custom orders.

 

[daninthemix]

It's a shame we have to have discussions about the legality/validity of hate.

I love how "I don't agree with you" automatically becomes "hate" in these discussions.

 

[gofreak]

That's over-simplification. People are running that business and it's not unprofessional to not do work that is not in line with their beliefs. Would they be unprofessional if they refused to make a vagina shaped cake? Where do you draw the line?.

I think we can flip that around also and ask where the line is for exemptions in discrimination laws based on 'personal beliefs' or 'religious beliefs'.

The problem is, once you allow such an exemption, anything goes given the subjective nature of beliefs.

In the wake of this ruling I saw people in support of the bakery, people arguing for 'conscience clauses' admitting, for example, that petrol stations could stop serving female drivers under such a regime.

On the boundary of 'rights' and competing rights the law has to make the lines. It's probably never going to be able to make everyone happy. I think it should be noted, though, that specifically religious organisations do enjoy exemptions already.

We can argue in this case that the bakery was not discriminating against the customer based on their sexual orientation, but based on the message on the cake - that's fair enough. But the bakery was also found to have discriminated on grounds of politics - and while that's not a 'protected' factor in all jurisdictions it is in Northern Ireland.

Anyway, my overriding thought with this is that a bit of common sense could have shortcutted this - the bakery could have not taken the order without making a deal out of WHY. They could have referred the order to a nearby bakery with a less controversial excuse.

 

[Baleoce]

Bake it so.

Engaged.

 

[Jenenser]

lol, digged up the old thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=851296

quite many people tought the bakery had the right to refuse this particular cakedesign.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

So illegalize the personal choice to not support gay marriage?

Nope, as it's unenforceable and illiberal to ban opinions, but there's a difference between opinion and action. The right of a gay person or group of gay people to be treated equally in all manners by society is infringed if somebody says "I don't want to treat you equally because of my personal beliefs".

If a gay cake decorator refused to make a cake for someone which had the slogon "Oppose Gay Marriage", it's also not the same thing. Why? Because opposition to gay marriage is opposition to equality. If you oppose equality, you don't get to use equality to defend your actions. You either endorse equality for all or you do not - there is no picking and choosing.

 

[Tertullian]

The number of people in this thread taking a profoundly anti-liberal position on freedom of speech is deeply disturbing.

It's no wonder conservatives constantly fear that the Rawlsian liberal promise to keep society neutral between diverse points of view is really a sham and a euphemism for "we will push you to the margins of society, fine you out of the public square, and crush you at the earliest opportunity if you ever oppose the zeitgeist." A hell of a lot of people in this thread seem determined to prove them right.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The number of people in this thread taking a profoundly anti-liberal position on freedom of speech is deeply disturbing.

It's not freedom of speech, it's division by action. There is a huge difference between saying "I oppose gay marriage" and saying "I won't let this person who supports gay marriage take advantage of my business".

Suppose that the folks make this cake and go out to do a little photo-shoot with it (I'm assuming that the logo on the left is for a forum or activist network, so let's say they go to a park and get their activists together). Someone comes along, sees the cake, and furiously smashes it to bits, then claims that the cake violated their freedom of speech.

Doesn't make any sense, does it? The cake's existence clearly didn't violate their freedom of speech.

Well, what if the person who smashes the cake and the person who made the cake are the same person, suddenly changing their minds after the cake was made?

Well, gee, that doesn't make any sense either. Just because they made it doesn't mean they're 'protecting their freedom of speech' by destroying it. It does not follow.

But what is the difference between the cake pre- creation and post- creation? If you hold that freedom of speech has anything to do with the creation of the cake, at some point before the cake is created, the cake maker suddenly has a supposedly immutable right, which then disappears in a puff of smoke down the process.

If we accept that a freedom is immutable, then an action to defend that freedom is also immutable, but as the example above shows, the cake maker has no real right to smash the cake after creation. Hence, there is no freedom of speech and no right to defend freedom of speech in not letting the cake be made.

 

[scamander]

That's over-simplification. People are running that business and it's not unprofessional to not do work that is not in line with their beliefs.

Except it is. Letting your private, personal beliefs affect the way you handle your business is the definition of nonprofessional behaviour.

Would they be unprofessional if they refused to make a vagina shaped cake?

In my country: yes. We have a giant vagina-shaped sculpture on a university campus and no problem with our bodies or sexuality. But that depends on the respective country and the common beliefs between its inhabitants. There is a difference between declining a service, because it is against common morals/ beliefs, respectively the law or because of your own personal beliefs.

Where do you draw the line? What is the percentage of people required to think in the same line with you on a subject to not be considered unprofessional when refusing anything?

The line is where the customer goes against the shared beliefs of the whole society, as mentioned above. If a topic is controversial and there is no single shared belief, just fulfill the order, no matter what your personal beliefs are. If you can't do that, that's not professional.

 

[hodgy100]

It's not freedom of speech, it's division by action. There is a huge difference between saying "I oppose gay marriage" and saying "I won't let this person who supports gay marriage take advantage of my business".

Then you go to another cake shop. And slam the homophobic cake shop (like what has happened) the shop owner has the right to be a homophobic piece of shit but he will probably loose business because of it. Such is the way of the free market.

 

[Kusagari]

I actually agree with him.

I think there's a very big difference between a bakery refusing to bake a generic cake for a gay couple and a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple that contains words/images they disagree with.

 

[Korey]

I don't see a difference to this stupid "gotcha" scenario from anti-gay activists http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=977219

A bakery should always be able to refuse specific custom orders.

Are we just going to conveniently forget that there's a difference between normal things you'd want to have written on your cake and hate speech?

"Support gay marriage" vs "God hates gays"....not the same thing.

 

[Tertullian]

It's not freedom of speech, it's division by action. There is a huge difference between saying "I oppose gay marriage" and saying "I won't let this person who supports gay marriage take advantage of my business".

Actual words written on a cake by a baker are a form of speech. If you can't see that, then frankly you are being deliberately obtuse.

"I won't let this person who supports gay marriage take advantage of my business" is not even a remotely accurate description of the situation, and you know it. If those customers (who support gay marriage) had requested a blank cake, they would have gotten one. If those customers (who support gay marriage) had requested a birthday cake, they would have gotten one. If a straight person had requested a cake saying "support gay marriage," he would have been refused as well. The issue was entirely and exclusively the message on the cake, and not the people who were buying it.

Can you not see how many hoops you are jumping through to betray a basic principle of liberty?

Suppose that the folks make this cake and go out to do a little photo-shoot with it (I'm assuming that the logo on the left is for a forum or activist network, so let's say they go to a park and get their activists together). Someone comes along, sees the cake, and furiously smashes it to bits, then claims that the cake violated their freedom of speech.

Doesn't make any sense, does it? The cake's existence clearly didn't violate their freedom of speech.

Well, what if the person who smashes the cake and the person who made the cake are the same person, suddenly changing their minds after the cake was made?

Well, gee, that doesn't make any sense either. Just because they made it doesn't mean they're 'protecting their freedom of speech' by destroying it. It does not follow.

But what is the difference between the cake pre- creation and post- creation? If you hold that freedom of speech has anything to do with the creation of the cake, at some point before the cake is created, the cake maker suddenly has a supposedly immutable right, which then disappears in a puff of smoke down the process.

If we accept that a freedom is immutable, then an action to defend that freedom is also immutable, but as the example above shows, the cake maker has no real right to smash the cake after creation. Hence, there is no freedom of speech and no right to defend freedom of speech in not letting the cake be made.

You've got to be kidding me with this argument. Obviously it's perfectly reasonable, and perfectly consistent, for the state to defend a person's right not to speak against their beliefs in the first place, without defending their right to retroactively destroy things they've sold that they now disagree with. By your logic, the state could force a person to personally write a letter in favor of gay marriage, simply on the grounds that if he had previously written such a letter and sent it out, he could not break into the recipients house in order to tear up the letter if he changed his mind.

This is downright silly now. Again: Can you not see how many (really enormous, really implausible) hoops you are jumping through to betray a basic principle of liberty?

 

[AxeMan]

What if you made a drug that could kill or heal depending on the circumstances.

Would you sell it to someone who only intended to kill with it?


I'll invoke goodwins law here.
What if your company made the gas that the Nazi's used in the chambers. Would you knowingly sell it to them?

 

[leadbelly]

If a gay cake decorator refused to make a cake for someone which had the slogon "Oppose Gay Marriage", it's also not the same thing. Why? Because opposition to gay marriage is opposition to equality. If you oppose equality, you don't get to use equality to defend your actions. You either endorse equality for all or you do not - there is no picking and choosing.

This is a weird argument you are making here. Declining to make a 'pro-gay marriage' slogan is not infringing on a gay couple's right to gay marriage. You're conflating the two here.

 

[cyberheater]

So yeah, stuff.

So Bert and Ernie are meant to be gay now. Fuck that.
I hate it when a folks appropriate stuff like this to push their own agenda.

 

[Jenenser]

The line is where the customer goes against the shared beliefs of the whole society, as mentioned above. If a topic is controversial and there is no single shared belief, just fulfill the order, no matter what your personal beliefs are. If you can't do that, that's not professional.

so, a muslim cakebaker should draw his prophet on a cake just because i want him to?

 

[PJV3]

If you're offering services to the public then you have to follow the law. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them refusing, if they only sold/advertised through a church or something.

 

[scamander]

So Bert and Ernie are meant to be gay now. Fuck that.
I hate it when a folks appropriate stuff like this to push their own agenda.

Dude, it's a common and well-known joke.

so, a muslim cakebaker should draw his prophet on a cake just because i want him to?

He can decline if he want, but doing so is probably not professional. (That aside, religious beliefs are not personal beliefs. Opposing gay marriage is not a common Christian belief.)

 

[cyberheater]

Dude, it's a common and well-known joke.

I don't find it funny.

 

[scamander]

I don't find it funny.

You don't have to, but don't act as if the people who are responsible for the design just made that up to use for their 'agenda'.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

This is a weird argument you are making here. Declining to make a 'pro-gay marriage' slogan is not infringing on a gay couple's right to gay marriage. You're conflating the two here.

It isn't, but it does impact on their ability to support gay marriage, with is an act in accordance with the promotion of equality, if that makes sense.

This is down a long rabbit hole, but essentially, equality and fundamental human rights are the same thing. Also, we have to recognise a major gap between belief and action - mostly because it is impossible to prove that a belief causes harm. This is why it's okay for the baker to believe that the slogan is wrong, but not to violate someone else's right to being treated equally because that someone else believes differently.

We have two clashing rights - the personal rights of someone's free speech VS the personal rights of another to be treated equally by both society and other individuals.

If we accept that equality is the fundamental point from which those freedoms arise, then it makes no sense to say that a freedom can be of greater importance than the both the reason for and the logic behind those freedoms.

Using your freedom of speech to explain your way out of refusing to treat a person equally by making a cake for them cannot work, because that freedom of speech is founded on a belief that all humans must be treated equally. If you believe that you as an individual can treat a person differently (because your personal opinion is more important than theirs) then you don't subscribe to equality, which means you don't subscribe to the fundamental rights of a human being, which means you can't use that fundamental right to explain why you don't need to to subscribe to equality.

The counter argument being made is that "but refusing to make the slogan cake doesn't affect anyone else other than the baker" which is untrue, as someone is being denied a cake because of someone else's prejudiced actions. The person who is being denied the cake is disadvantaged.

Ultimately, you cannot pick and choose equality, just like you can't pick and choose human rights.

 

[cyberheater]

You don't have to, but don't act as if the people who are responsible for the design just made that up to use for their 'agenda'.

They are using a picture of two popular children's tv puppets as gay mascots. Sounds pretty twisted and shitty to me.
I don't blame the bakers objecting to that.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I'd be interested to hear his close friend Ian McKellen's views on this :\

 

[Kinyou]

Are we just going to conveniently forget that there's a difference between normal things you'd want to have written on your cake and hate speech?

"Support gay marriage" vs "God hates gays"....not the same thing.

It's still about supporting a political message or not. The sexuality/faith of the one who orders the cake doesn't matter. That's why I don't see a discrimination. Calling out a bakery for not supporting gay marriage (or supporting hate speech) is fine, but I don't see why courts have to be involved.

 

[Jenenser]

I'd be interested to hear his close friend Ian McKellen's views on this :\

yeah, we better not pull him into this. the last time they both clashed it started an outright war with many humans and mutants losing there lifes...

but to be honest. i do think he would end up with the same conclusion.

 

[scamander]

They are using a picture of two popular children's tv puppets as gay mascots. Sounds pretty twisted and shitty to me.
I don't blame the bakers objecting to that.

Why are you emphasising, that they are "children's tv puppets"? What has that to do with anything?

Is that poster the LGBT community of my university plastered all over the city early this year, twisted as well? It's advertising a party btw.

 

[AxeMan]

I think this comes down to that you can't make people say what you want them to say.

 

[Lazlo Woodbine]

If your religious beliefs say that gay marriage is wrong, then I think it is ok to refuse to do a cake that has a message supporting gay marriage.

We allow people to wear religious headress in certain situations or jobs, where people of other religions or non-religions are not allowed, simply because of their beliefs. If I were an atheist and wanted a cake that said 'jesus sucks' or something and they refused, I think they are within their right.

This is a private business, and if they don't want to write a message that goes against their religious beliefs then I think that should be within their right.

As times change they will be in the minority of people that think that way, and as they see the world change around them, perhaps they will change their viewpoint. But until then I think they should be allowed to refuse the cake if they want.

Bolded is an oxymoron.

Never understood this position. If you run a business, you rely on the patronage of the public thereby making it the antithesis of a private venture.

Whilst I understand PS point re: encroaching the liberty to object, you void this right when you advertise your services publicly, end of story.

People deriding those bringing racial/gender comparisons as a counter argument, I would say this: the only reason we're even entertaining this as a normal ethical debate, as a society, is because the Christian doctrine has a better pedigree then a more modern cult. Time has given this form of bigotry a false legitimacy that, I'm pleased to see, is gradually being overturned.

Bottom line though, the point is moot in the face of anti-descrimination legislation (which I'm glad to say we have here in the UK).

I'm not really surprised to see opinions divided between geographic lines (Europeans v Americans) on this either.

 

[kharma45]

Well, that's very wrong of them. I don't think Patrick Stewart would support that.

It is, as they entered into a contract with the man to bake the cake when they took his money.

 

[Yen]

Nope, It's not. I wouldn't expect a Gay bakery to make a Anti-gay cake.

This has probably been addressed in the thread but the judge's ruling stated that the bakery weren't a "Christian bakery", they were a for-profit business that denied service to a customer on grounds of sexual orientation (after taking his money).

 

[leadbelly]

It isn't, but it does impact on their ability to support gay marriage, with is an act in accordance with the promotion of equality, if that makes sense.

This is down a long rabbit hole, but essentially, equality and fundamental human rights are the same thing. Also, we have to recognise a major gap between belief and action - mostly because it is impossible to prove that a belief causes harm.

We have two clashing rights - the personal rights of someone's free speech VS the personal rights of another to be treated equally by both society and other individuals, with no preference for privilege, race, sexuality, etc.

If we accept that equality is the fundamental point from which those freedoms arise, then it makes no sense to say that a freedom can be of greater importance than the both the reason for and the logic behind those freedoms.

Using your freedom of speech to explain your way out of refusing to treat a person equally by making a cake for them cannot work, because that freedom of speech is founded on a belief that all humans must be treated equally.

It's not really freedom of speech, as such, it's more freedom of conscience actually. This is another strong liberal tenet.

You made the argument that it is okay to decline an 'oppose gay marriage' slogan, but not a 'pro-gay marriage' slogan. This is an arbitrary distinction though. Your justification for this is that opposition to gay marriage is opposition to equality. The right to gay marriage has nothing to do with this though. It is the right for a baker to decline custom slogans for whatever reason that is in question here. What your argument really boils down to is that one set of moral values are not in accordance with your values therefore they should not have the same right to decline service.

 

[IndoAssassin]

Writing "I'm Gay" on a cake is just as stupid as writing "I'm Straight" on a cake.

 

[SkeptiMism]

It should probably be explicitly said in the OP that he's talking about the Irish case, not the US cases. In the Irish case it was because of the message, while in the US cases it has generally been about the people (gays).

So yeah, I agree with him. No company should be able to refuse someone just for being black, gay or female or whatever like that, but you should be able to refuse making messages or pictures etc etc, that you don't want to, even if your views might be silly.

If I was a baker and someone tried to have me make a cake in the form of a dick, then I'd say it was quite fair to decline (I'd probably do it though). If someone tried to have me make a cake with a message "climate change isn't real" I'd say it would be quite fair to decline. Similarly, I'd most certainly decline if someone tried to have me make a cake saying "fuck niggers" or something like that.

While I'd have no problem making a cake saying "support gay marriage", I can see someone not wanting to do that, and while I think that view would be silly and immature, it'd be in the end, about the same right. As long as the baker would be willing to serve the person otherwise that is.

I don't see a difference to this stupid "gotcha" scenario from anti-gay activists http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=977219

A bakery should always be able to refuse specific custom orders.

In general, I agree (and I quite rarely find myself seeing any posts from you that I would agree with).

Writing "I'm Gay" on a cake is just as stupid as writing "I'm Straight" on a cake.

I'm not sure at all where this is coming from, but no they're not really the same things. One is the norm, other one is fairly rare and almost every time something that one fights to be able to say it out loud, so I dunno, maybe someone could use a cake to come out of the closet.

However, regarding the case of that thread it's worth remembering that it happened in the US and it was meant as a counter to the well justified outrage at the bakeries refusing to serve gays, not as a counter to this Irish case.

 

[biggersmaller]

It's a shame we have to have discussions about the legality/validity of hate.

Of course bakeries are free not to bake cakes with messages they don't agree with, just sad the opposition remains.

Refusing to bake this cake is hardly "hate." Is every time a gay couple is refused service going to spark an international news story, no matter how reasonable the business owner is being? Many gay people probably wouldn't bake a cake that shows Bert and Ernie as gay.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

They are using a picture of two popular children's tv puppets as gay mascots. Sounds pretty twisted and shitty to me.
I don't blame the bakers objecting to that.

So are you saying it's twisted because they're being portrayed as gay? Because that's some disgusting bigotry coming out of you if that's the case. It would be twisted if the pic were of them buttfucking or 69ing (just as it would be twisted showing a heterosexual puppet couple doing the same). But just chilling together with a caption saying they're gay is not a big deal.

OT, I agree with Stewart. If the bakery owner doesn't want to bake a cake, don't force them. It's not going to change their views on gays, it's not going to strike a blow against discrimination, and they'll probably just put boogers or poop in their cake out of spite.

Move on.

 

[P44]

so, a muslim cakebaker should draw his prophet on a cake just because i want him to?

Essentially this is what it comes down to.

 

[Zornack]

Then you go to another cake shop. And slam the homophobic cake shop (like what has happened) the shop owner has the right to be a homophobic piece of shit but he will probably loose business because of it. Such is the way of the free market.

The shop owner has the right to be homophobic but not the right to refuse service to homosexuals because of their sexuality.

 

[P44]

Bolded is an oxymoron.

Never understood this position. If you run a business, you rely on the patronage of the public thereby making it the antithesis of a private venture.

Whilst I understand PS point re: encroaching the liberty to object, you void this right when you advertise your services publicly, end of story.

People deriding those bringing racial/gender comparisons as a counter argument, I would say this: the only reason we're even entertaining this as a normal ethical debate, as a society, is because the Christian doctrine has a better pedigree then a more modern cult. Time has given this form of bigotry a false legitimacy that, I'm pleased to see, is gradually being overturned.

Bottom line though, the point is moot in the face of anti-descrimination legislation (which I'm glad to say we have here in the UK).

I'm not really surprised to see opinions divided between geographic lines (Europeans v Americans) on this either.

Does an Atheist bakery have the right to refuse to make a cake espousing Christian values? Does a Manchester United fan, running a bakery, have the right to refuse to make a Liverpool cake?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I love how "I don't agree with you" automatically becomes "hate" in these discussions.

Being opposed to gay marriage has no defensible reasoning, so

The cake pictured is like 4-chan level and might even get someone sued so that's another matter entirely

 

[Zornack]

Does an Atheist bakery have the right to refuse to make a cake espousing Christian values? Does a Manchester United fan, running a bakery, have the right to refuse to make a Liverpool cake?

Yes, yes.

The bakery was fined because they were found to have refused service because of the sexual orientation of the customer. Maybe the court got it wrong and that didn't happen but that doesn't change the underlying logic: the customer's sexual orientation, not just the cake, was why the bakery refused service.

 

[P44]

Being opposed to gay marriage has no defensible reasoning, so

This has no relevance whatsoever.

I entirely agree with you, but that is not what this case is really about. I rephrase.

In a liberal society, does a business have the right to not carry a product in their range?

Yes, yes.

The bakery was fined because they were found to have refused service because of the sexuality of the customer. Maybe the court got it wrong and that didn't happen but that doesn't change the underlying logic: the person's sexuality, not just the cake, was why the bakery refused service.

And if this was the case, the judgement was fine.

 

[M0nochromatic]

They shouldn't have the ability to discriminate in regards to race, sexuality, religion, etc. If you read up on American history in the southern states you can see why allowing the market itself to decide who sells what to who isn't a great idea.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

I don't see a difference to this stupid "gotcha" scenario from anti-gay activists http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=977219

A bakery should always be able to refuse specific custom orders.

This reminds me of when Nike allowed you to get custom words stitched onto shoes. Some guy tried to get "sweatshop" but Nike refused, which is of course in their rights.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

This has no relevance whatsoever.

I entirely agree with you, but that is not what this case is really about. I rephrase.

In a liberal society, does a business have the right to not carry a product in their range?



And if this was the case, the judgement was fine.

If you want to ignore the rest of my posts, than leave me out please

 

[scamander]

This reminds me of when Nike allowed you to get custom words stitched onto shoes. Some guy tried to get "sweatshop" but Nike refused, which is of course in their rights.

That's something entirely different.

 

[DoktorEvil]

That's something entirely different.

It's about the same. Someone is co-oping a product or service to push a political agenda the business might not wholly agree with.

The bakery would be in the wrong as well if they provided the lettering for the cake and it resulted in them losing consumers who didn't agree with their message. The pendulum swings both ways.

A business is not suppose to infringe on or deny services to people of different backgrounds, yet at the same time they also need to protect their right to remain politically neutral or pro/con a specific position.

 

[boiled goose]

I think they should be able to refuse to make a specific type of cake, not deny service though.

You can't force people to draw or write something they don't want, but you have to serve everyone.

Lots of nuance.

 

[Red Hood]

What were the words the bakers had to put on the cake? I can't find them in the article.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I meant naivety in the sense of not having an understanding of the situation on the ground.

On the subject of principles: I accept that maintaining principles will ensure that some groups suffer. I think that in all cases where there is a tradeoff between a majority and a minority that the majority should carry the suffering and the minority should be protected. The majority already has all the priviledge inherent in a majority whereas the minority already suffers all the limitations inherent in a minority.

But the whole point is that the principles apply no matter the situation on the ground. Is it your principle that an artisan who opens their skill up to the public has to take every single request, or that they specifically cannot refuse orders relating to the political situation of a particular protected minority? Cuz it's not one of mine.