[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

These bakeries that hide behind their religions to discriminate against people are rarely companies that have religion as their USP tbh. Nobody would have looked at this company or the one in Ireland and think 'ah, this is a christian bakery.'

[Livia]

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Livia

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order

sums it up for me

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order

I don't understand the comparison. In this instance they're making cakes, that they make, for the consumption of the customer paying for it.

A publisher doesn't just print any and all books, but books they as a company select and choose to finance/publish?

It's why I don't get the halal comparison either. That would be a company being requested to make foods they don't sell, this isn't. It was a customer asking for a cake... from a cake shop.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't understand the comparison. In this instance they're making cakes, that they make, for the consumption of the customer paying for it.

A publisher doesn't just print any and all books, but books they as a company select and choose to finance/publish?

It's why I don't get the halal comparison either. That would be a company being requested to make foods they don't sell, this isn't. It was a customer asking for a cake... from a cake shop.

You could think of it as a printer rather than a publisher though... You can self-publish, but surely, if someone writes a book full of dangerous propaganda and orders 5000 copies to be printed, we want the owner of that company to be able to say "no I'm not OK with printing this."

Again this cake situation isn't about declaring them to be good people or morally justified or that they shouldn't face a boycott or whatever... It's just about making sure that no one is FORCED into anything . I can see the point in legislation against this sort of discrimination when it's a larger company or chain... But a small business like an independent shop or soul trader, really their business should be "their business".

The only other effects are 1) hurting / offending the couple, but then I say again, better that they know what to think of that person...

And 2) costing themselves customers for a stupid bigoted reason. But if they want to do that then

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You could think of it as a printer rather than a publisher though... You can self-publish, but surely, if someone writes a book full of dangerous propaganda and orders 5000 copies to be printed, we want the owner of that company to be able to say "no I'm not OK with printing this."

True but then that ceases to be a valid comparison again, because dangerous propaganda this is not.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again this cake situation isn't about declaring them to be good people or morally justified or that they shouldn't face a boycott or whatever... It's just about making sure that no one is FORCED into anything . I can see the point in legislation against this sort of discrimination when it's a larger company or chain... But a small business like an independent shop or soul trader, really their business should be "their business".

The only other effects are 1) hurting / offending the couple, but then I say again, better that they know what to think of that person...

And 2) costing themselves customers for a stupid bigoted reason. But if they want to do that then

I don't agree. I think it's upholding law, which is if you wish to run a business you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed etc. Like, if one of these men applied for a job at the bakery and were refused for being gay, that would be discriminatory and against the law.

Not the company being "forced" to do anything other than to follow the law.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

christ has risen

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He looks like some hippy that lives in a forest. Look at the little trees surrounding the edge of the cake... it has a Robin Hood, 60's-era pot smoker vibe.