[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.