-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Northern Ireland "Gay Cake" case - Supreme Court sides with bakery
- Thread starter Pankratous
- Start date
Being selective in whom they offer a service to can be discrimination, but being selective in which service they offer is not. That gives them the freedom to act with poor moral character, but that is the price of any freedom.
Sure, there's being unaware. But there is also simple changing. And something being transient does not make it useless as an identifier. I'm a gamer until I'm not. I'm a an audiophile until I'm not.
No, because that implies that one's sexuality is a choice, which it absolutely isn't.
No it doesn't, at least not consciously. Though acting on any inclinations is certainly a choice which in and of itself may create a self reinforcing feedback loop. Not sure why people are so dogmatic about the brain when it is so incredibly malleable and complex.
This isn't the slippery slope you're making it out to be and I don't know what it is that you're not getting.
Sexist people aren't a protected class. Homophobic people aren't a protected class. Racist people aren't a protected class. You're trying to claim that bigoted beliefs are some sort of political form of free speech that need to be protected. They don't need to be protected.
Saying "you're not allowed to refuse service on the grounds of homophobic beliefs" does not open the door to queer people being forced to provide service to people with homophobic "political" beliefs. Not to mention that homophobic people going into queer businesses and demanding to pay them for services is not even a real issue outside of your imagination.
I agree, I just believe that this freedom is not something necessary or even positive for certain jobs. Icing text on a cake, painting a wall, printing anything that's legal to print, these are non-creative tasks that, in my opinion, should be fulfilled without any creative input from the worker. You may think that sounds cruel, but I believe that this is the best system possible.
I know this doesn't work as a direct comparison, but this reminds me of discussions I had about hate speech laws and the Verbotsgesetz. I've had a few people, mostly Americans, tell me they strongly disagree with having laws like this. "Yes, saying that is awful, but it's the price of freedom". I don't see the need for these freedoms.
A choice needs to be conscious by definition because you need to have agency over the matter.
Me accepting my sexuality wasn't a choice either. It's not "I guess I'm gay now", it's "this is who I am."
I think the issue here is that you're conflating "self" with "sense of self" when they really should be separate entities. The "self" will never change, but people can change how they perceive themselves at any time, even willingly lie to themselves.
I've had a chance to put my thoughts into a more long format
I totally get the Supreme Court's ruling on Ashers. They've looked at it from the point of view that Ashers, as a business, didn't refuse the individual service and also offered an unprinted cake.
That's fine, no one is saying they're refusing to serve gay people, but they obviously do not see them as equals based on the fact a cake in support of equal marriage is beyond their skills.
No one asked them to support the message, just to print a cake. If individuals refused, that's one thing, but I refuse to believe every Ashers employee had issues with equal marriage.
f everyone in Ashers has issues, then I'd suspect very discriminatory hiring practices within their business.
In any case, they took the order and the money, and it was days later after chatting to their church types they tried to return the money.
If their issue is with the message of supporting gay marriage, then Supreme Court ruling or not, they're still bigots because they don't see gay people as equal.
However, "tick tock".
Only a matter of time before equal marriage happens here and then they'll not be able to refuse them at all.
I totally get the Supreme Court's ruling on Ashers. They've looked at it from the point of view that Ashers, as a business, didn't refuse the individual service and also offered an unprinted cake.
That's fine, no one is saying they're refusing to serve gay people, but they obviously do not see them as equals based on the fact a cake in support of equal marriage is beyond their skills.
No one asked them to support the message, just to print a cake. If individuals refused, that's one thing, but I refuse to believe every Ashers employee had issues with equal marriage.
f everyone in Ashers has issues, then I'd suspect very discriminatory hiring practices within their business.
In any case, they took the order and the money, and it was days later after chatting to their church types they tried to return the money.
If their issue is with the message of supporting gay marriage, then Supreme Court ruling or not, they're still bigots because they don't see gay people as equal.
However, "tick tock".
Only a matter of time before equal marriage happens here and then they'll not be able to refuse them at all.
And that is a discomfort that the supreme court is eager to protect for...reasons.
This is all kinds of fucked and really can't be defended as anything but homophobic.
Eh, if I was making a cake and a customer wanted me to make one that said "Repeal Gay Marriage" then I would like to be able to refuse that. So it's hard for me to rebuke this technicality.
Thankfully I'm sure there are plenty of bakeries that will happily make a cake that will say what you want and the shitty ones will lose business.
Thankfully I'm sure there are plenty of bakeries that will happily make a cake that will say what you want and the shitty ones will lose business.
It's not the same thing. Being against gay marriage is not something that needs protection against discrimination.
Why are you so convinced that one's self is not changeable? If that's the case why bother trying to rehabilitate individuals? People can and do change themselves consciously and unconsciously all the time.
Gay marriage is not a political belief. There's nothing political about it. Y'all think it's a political issue because conservative fuckheads scream loudly enough and y'all take the bait. Calling it a political belief just means bigots can find ways to not believe in it without being labeled a bigot. Gay marrige like hetero marriage is a step to universal happiness. It's like saying climate change or vaccinations are political beliefs, and if anyone does believe that then please get out or don't add to the gene pool.
The activist literally gave the bakery a political flyer to put on the cake.
That means nothing. I could get a political flier that says climate change is real. Because something is politicized doesn't make it a political belief.
More about the general idea that universal happiness derives from a social construct. It's naive.
So a meaningless comment. The pursuit of happiness is undeniable especially when it is given to the majority of the people and not a few. It's universally wrong.
It is a political issue though because unless it's changed through political means, it's not legal. It shouldn't be an issue, political or otherwise, but that's just not realistic.
So if someone is unhappy because they are gay and can't get married, it's actually their fault for not being happy without marriage?
I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue.
So if I was to put minorities and white people cannot marry on my political agenda and idiots believe me, it's not wrong for people who vote my party to deny work regarding the approval and acceptance of interracial marriage?
Politicizing an issue doesn't make it a political belief. It just means a party is endorsing or going against it. This doesn't change wether something is discrimatory or not. It's just a loophole to allow bigotry.
This seems like a pretty tone-deaf take in regards to a thread about culturally and systemically oppressed minorities.
Didn't that exact thing happen until, politically, it was changed to make it legal?
Anything can be classed as political but, the fact is, supporting gay marriage in Northern Ireland is supporting a union that is not currently legal until politicians make that change. It's completely a political issue until it's no longer a political issue.
A person's personality and disposition are not part of said person's identity, though. Sexual orientation is, which is why it is discriminatory to not treat it equally like you would with race or sex.
Personally I believe the bakery was fucked if they made the cake or not.
The activist would've run with a story that the Christian bakery printed a gay logo and took his money should they've made it.
I believe the activist went to this particular bakery with an agenda.
The activist would've run with a story that the Christian bakery printed a gay logo and took his money should they've made it.
I believe the activist went to this particular bakery with an agenda.
Like, I get what you're saying: politicians make the policies so it's a political thing. You're missing the point, though, it's not a political issue, it's a Right's issue wrapped in politics. You can discrimate against someone because it is OK to not support another political party because 1 party actually supports people. Basic human rights and decency are not political issues. They are not default political as that allows for hateful people to slow down progress.
every post starting with "eh" in this thread has an objectively terrible and homophobic opinion attached to it
Fuck this, lets get all baked goods to be considered gay by default.
No other changes, it's just gay, it does mean in this case the bakery would be discriminatory though.
Please support LBGTQ rights today by cooking and eating baked goods.
Edit: I'm getting serious about this now, can we have a LGBTQ baking day?
No other changes, it's just gay, it does mean in this case the bakery would be discriminatory though.
Please support LBGTQ rights today by cooking and eating baked goods.
Edit: I'm getting serious about this now, can we have a LGBTQ baking day?
Yep just like Abortion rights are a political issue because it's the law that decides them - and we require politics as the tool to change the law. Heck we require politics to uphold the laws and keep minorities rights. Calling it a political issue doesn't make it less of a right or make Gay marriage an "opinion". It means you need to use the law and politician's to enforce it. Unfortunately at the moment we don't even have a government in Northern Ireland at the moment and I don't see us getting one soon - maybe the Civil Service could push it through - or at least give us a Referendum - hopefully on Abortion rights too.
They shouldn't be, but as you said, politicians make it that way and you can't just ignore them, you have to push changes through. NI has an added issue of one of the worst abuses of democracy when we had a government in place - "the petition of concern", a device to prevent a dominant unionist or nationalist majority from creating policies that would directly negatively impact the other side.
It allowed two people to basically block anything including, as it happens, equal marriage because of how it can be abused.
It shouldn't be, but it's very much a political issue here because it's certainly not one of society where most support it.
You say most don't support it but that really isn't the case - DUP is the one party that opposes it and there was a study where they analysed their voters and 33% were in favour, 33% opposed and 33 % didn't mind either way- and that's the party that is opposed to Gay marriage. The problem is less that people are opposed to Gay Marriage, it's that it is never actually treated as a proper issue- Sinn Fein basically just put a gay marriage vote in as a way to score political points from DUP, they weren't honestly trying to get it through. Despite in the last election constantly using Civil Rights rhetoric and putting rainbow posters in students areas, they positioned the Irish Language Act as their red line for government talks and didn't bring up gay marriage at all. And a NI government has to be made of the largest parties from both sides so it's not like they didn't have the political power to do so. NI politics devolves done to one issue- Us vs Them and the setup makes it incredibly hard to hold any party accountable. But that doesn't mean that the NI people don't care about those issues or want something changed, it's that it's incredibly hard to get the parties to do anything at all. We can't even get them back in government and they've been out nearly two years
If you vote for DUP or Sinn Fein, you cause these issues. There's good politicians out there and none of them are in either party. Once people here wake up, then we'd have proper government. The us vs them has gone on too long.
You keep arguing this point but I disagree. It's not fixed. But it can still be discriminatory even if it is. An attribute being innate or static is not a prerequisite to bar discrimination based on said attribute. Religion for example.
Last edited:
What exactly is preventing you from agreeing with me? I'm not just speaking anecdotally here, you know. No gay person is going to say that they "became gay" because that's just not how it happens.
Also, even though you're right in that second point, a person's identity is protected by law (or at least should be). Religion is really only an exception to this as it's the only instance of a protected class (that I can find, at least) that is based on belief rather than identity.
I think it's very hard to put every person in a single category like that. Whilst my own experience is that I was absolutely born gay, and that's who I am at the most basic level - I had a member of staff who worked for me who was adamant she chose to be gay, in later life. Personally don't understand that at all, and always assumed she was bisexual who decided to commit only in one direction for whatever reason. But her stance was that for her, it was a deliberate choice and that from that point on she was stopping having heterosexual relationships and moved to gay ones.
I know plenty fella, I have lived here all my life.
I'm not talking about the DUP with regards to the partitioning of the Island (required due to the legacy of the plantation and British Colonialism in Ireland).
Again I said the troubles resulted in the tragic murders of innocents from all sides, so please read clearly.
Your assumption that I am a Sinn Fein supporter because I pointed out the bigotry of the DUP and the Christian right they are supported from, the same community the owner of Asher's come from.
Am I wrong that the Storming government, from partition until 1972 ran an apartheid government that discriminated against Catholics (no equal rights to jobs (hence the fair employment act), no equal rights to homes, health or education, no right to vote)?
The civil rights movement of the late 60's was born from those inequalities.
The Protestant, right wing leaders of Northern Ireland had 50 years to prove they could lead equally, instead they chose to oppress. Now current leaders from that community block gay rights, abortion and pursue a right wing agenda.
Hate has come from all sides in the past, and I do not agree with secterinaism, I am sorry you and I and to experience these things.
But in current times with regards to progressing the social agenda, the DUP are the road block and they fully support Asher's. They are bigots clear and simple.
If any of the above things I have said are wrong, please show me evdience of how. There is plenty of historical record about the oppression and bigotry that lead to the troubles and plenty of evidence of the continued bigotry of the DUP.
Well, I won't claim to understand your own situation, but I also can't really understand your argument either without that, so I guess we're at an impasse. =/
The armed forces of the UK murdered it's own citizens in Derry and Belfast.
There are monuments to kids murdered by the Protestant RUC with plastic bullets (I do mean kids), some of that old police force are still in the reformed PSNi.
Am I allowed to refuse service to soldiers, police, people wearing poppies?
Or can we put that in the past and realise that social justice issues bear no relation to the troubles and that a group with clear issues with bigotry are simply bigots and gay marriage is not a political issue.
Is straight marriage a political construct or a personal matter between two people, like it is for gay people and a moral issue with regards to whether you support or oppose it.
It's simple bigotry.
It's very difficult to communicate experiences admittedly. Mine differs from yours, however, and that should be enough.
The only way legislation forcing a baker to accommodate a request such as this is if practicing most religions is also de-legitimized.
If the baker was also Catholic and if Catholicism is recognized (legally) as a legitimate faith, it makes 0% sense to force the baker to put a message on their product that endorses one of the fundamental no-no's of their religion.
If the baker was also Catholic and if Catholicism is recognized (legally) as a legitimate faith, it makes 0% sense to force the baker to put a message on their product that endorses one of the fundamental no-no's of their religion.
My initial reaction was that it shouldn't be controversial as that's how these things work.
Most if not all businesses that offer commissioned work include a clause that they have the right to refuse service, and it should be expected.
So as a product of their business, they should have the right to choose what messages they are willing to endorse with their name.
It would be another matter entirely if they refused to sell them any cake because they were gay, but if they said "we'll sell you the cake, but we're not writing that on it" they are within their rights to do so - just as anyone is within their rights to go somewhere else instead of supporting that business (which I would encourage).
It should be (and is) illegal for them to sell cakes with hate speech on them, but they should not be forced to write anything that a customer requests, with the only criteria being that it does not fall under hate speech laws.
But what if they are the only bakery in a small town, or all the local bakeries share the same bigoted views?
And I have other concerns about what would be considered a "commissioned work". It's one thing to have what I assume is a standard cake where writing a message on it is optional, but what about wedding cakes?
What if they have a "wedding cake" service but refuse to put two male or two female toppers on it, or refuse to write two male or two female names?
I'd like to think that it would count as being discriminatory, since those are things which should be expected as a standard option for a wedding rather than a custom message, and it would mean that they would be refusing service due to the fact that they are gay. But would that be the case?
So I'm left with conflicted feelings over this.
I don't think a business should be forced to produce anything that you want to commission them for. They should have the right to refuse it, and I think this case falls under that - even though I strongly disagree with their decision to not make the cake.
But the question is what is considered to be "commissioned work" and at what point does refusing it become discriminatory?
Most if not all businesses that offer commissioned work include a clause that they have the right to refuse service, and it should be expected.
So as a product of their business, they should have the right to choose what messages they are willing to endorse with their name.
It would be another matter entirely if they refused to sell them any cake because they were gay, but if they said "we'll sell you the cake, but we're not writing that on it" they are within their rights to do so - just as anyone is within their rights to go somewhere else instead of supporting that business (which I would encourage).
It should be (and is) illegal for them to sell cakes with hate speech on them, but they should not be forced to write anything that a customer requests, with the only criteria being that it does not fall under hate speech laws.
But what if they are the only bakery in a small town, or all the local bakeries share the same bigoted views?
And I have other concerns about what would be considered a "commissioned work". It's one thing to have what I assume is a standard cake where writing a message on it is optional, but what about wedding cakes?
What if they have a "wedding cake" service but refuse to put two male or two female toppers on it, or refuse to write two male or two female names?
I'd like to think that it would count as being discriminatory, since those are things which should be expected as a standard option for a wedding rather than a custom message, and it would mean that they would be refusing service due to the fact that they are gay. But would that be the case?
So I'm left with conflicted feelings over this.
I don't think a business should be forced to produce anything that you want to commission them for. They should have the right to refuse it, and I think this case falls under that - even though I strongly disagree with their decision to not make the cake.
But the question is what is considered to be "commissioned work" and at what point does refusing it become discriminatory?
Privately owned businesses are not public property.