[TomC]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

[Jamie89]

I'm more than tolerant of someone else's beliefs. But if somebody is running a business that conflicts with their beliefs then that is their problem, not mine or anybody else's. What they have to do, like anybody running a business, is figure out a way of solving that problem or compromising. Instead, their solution was to offload the problem onto the public so they didn't have to deal with it themselves. For want of a better expression they are having their cake and eating it.

From the publics point of view its very simple. See a service is advertised, request that service, get refused service on the grounds of sexuality. Would that be acceptable if we were talking about race? Sex? Of course it wouldn't (and that is just as valid a point as 'what if it were an Islamic bakers'). Anybody serving the public can serve someone whilst retaining their feelings of prejudice against them, nobody's actually being asked to change their beliefs.

It doesn't have to be a case of 'who's rights are more important' both sides deserve their rights to be respected but there is only one side that had no choice in this situation occurring and that's the gay couple. There was no way for them to know they would be refused service or for it to happen because of their sexuality. The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place. So the 'it works both ways' thing, it's not exactly equal looking at it both ways, there's quite a big difference. In terms of one side's reasonable expectations of what service they will receive, those expectations are managed entirely by the other side. For it to be twisted into 'the gay couple are being prejudiced or intolerant towards christians', or 'so gay rights are more important than religious rights?'.. I can't fathom any of that at all as it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by TomC

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

This is true as well, why are accusations of pettiness being directed towards the gay couple? They didn't take this to the supreme Court, the bakery did. And this obviously factors in quite heavily to that decision...

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place.

True, as soon as gay marriage was legalised, a shop selling wedding cakes would know that they were at some point going to be asked to make one for a gay wedding... so, I guess, it is in some ways up to that service provider to make a choice, and if they're so opposed to making a wedding cake for an "unconventional" marriage then they should simply stop offering wedding cakes altogether.

I also don't really buy that it's all about religious rights here. Are they refusing to make wedding cakes for couples where one or both of them are divorcees? I highly doubt it as that would significantly impact their business... but the bible says no to that too .

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

I agree with this and I reckon most people wouldn't want that but I think there's something more fundamental which is being able to walk into a shop without worrying that you'll be turned away because of something like sexuality, for me that's the core of it. If I was to be turned away then no I wouldn't want to force them and I wouldn't want their products, but it's that the situation is allowed to happen in the first place that I think is the problem, and yes I think I would do something about that.
If the bakers problem is the conflict between their religion and their business, the solution to that shouldn't have to be the customer walking away after being refused service to find someone else, that's putting their problem onto the customer when it's theirs to deal with.

[Livia]

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

To be fair though, if a Muslim owned a sandwich shop you would assume it would state clearly on the sign that it's Halal, in fact it would probably even be used AS advertising, so there's an expectation of "no ham". I guess the cake shop owner could put "No gay wedding cakes" on the sign but it wouldn't make for great advertising...

[bots]

Well, it's an interesting one .... Could someone go in to a hardware shop and demand that the shop supplied them with pink or blue nuts and bolts. I think the answer would be a most obvious no. If the person wanted blue and pink nuts and bolts, they would try and find a supplier that could provide them, they wouldn't try and sue the original shop.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

I wouldn't go to a Halal store and expect a Ham Sandwich tbh. Not providing someone with a ham sandwich isn't the same as not providing someone with a product they do sell because of their discriminatory beliefs is a different ball park.