‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

I know that in this case what the baker was asked to write would not be a lie for most people, but for this baker this statement would be compelled and would be a ‘lie’

“Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them. It’s something that was endemic to totalitarianism.”

If the next step is that I’m compelled to say TWAW, then this case is important.

then you cannot legally deny them service (at least under Australia's Anti Discrimination Act) because they are gay, a Muslim, a Jew, a woman, in an interracial marriage. You cope or get out of the business altogether.

They did not deny them a service because they were gay. They agreed to bake the cake. They simply refused to write a message they didn't agree with.

Also, according to the principles you've set out, single women working alone from home should be obliged to wax J Yaniv's balls, even though they are a female-only service. Do you believe this is right?

Incidentally is the complainant in this case actually gay? There was a case where the complainant was heterosexual along similar lines but I don't recall if it was this specific one.

if you're in business, if you can't handle serving the public then don’t be in business

So a website developer should build a site for the local BNP chapter or maybe dogs home that pits down healthy dogs they can home?

As I therapist I should have sat alone in a closed room with a man who admitted having anger issues and a trigger temper (and a police record for attacking woman).

Nope it’s work not slavery.

I am happy to support the bakers' right not to write it.

The complainant is, to my mind, a vexatious litigant in exactly the same mould as Yaniv. There were other companies he could have used. The baker in question offered a fair compromise. There was never any need to drag this to court. Not agreeing with gay marriage on a personal level is not the same as discrimination. Refusing to sell a cake to a gay person would be discrimination. Refusing to write a message that is contradictory to your beliefs regardless of who is asking you to write it is not.

Personally I don't see the difference between a baker refusing to put support interracial marriage or support gay marriage. I think if you're in business, if you can't handle serving the public, then don't be in business. I don't accept the argument that is 'freedom of religion'. I don't accept that being against gay marriage should be protected via freedom of religion. We had a similar debate in Australia when we legalised marriage equality in 2017. Our rules are strict in that religion is not an excuse to refuse service or to bake/write on cakes. As others in the debate said at the time, where does it end? Shops/bakeries refusing to cater for Jews or Muslims because they refuse to bake/write on the cakes?

Like I said, interracial marriage used to be banned - and the Bible was used as evidence/reason to ban it. Your rights to freedom of religion ends when you sign on for work each day. If you agree to serve the public, then you cannot legally deny them service (at least under Australia's Anti Discrimination Act) because they are gay, a Muslim, a Jew, a woman, in an interracial marriage. You cope or get out of the business altogether.

Freedom of speech is important; freedom from compelled speech is perhaps even more important.

Read Orwell: 'repeat after me...'

It's the parallel of what Voltaire didn't actually say:

'‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’'

• in this case most of us would approve of what the bakers were asked to write, but should defend their right not to write it.

They could also have done what I do with birthday cakes - draw my own design, email it to a company that makes sugar toppings and stick it on myself. But then I couldn’t throw a hissy fit and drag anyone to court, huh?

IMO the baker in this case was deliberately targetted

Weren't the bakers targetted in the same way as #waxmyballs?

The person who wanted the cake could have chosen any number of bakeries that were willing to ice his cake, but deliberately picked the religious baker who wasn't.

I suppose as a self employed person you should have the right not to take on work that makes you feel uncomfortable/bad/scared.

I worked as a therapist and the rule was that if someone came in for an appointment and you felt scared or worried the door would be left open or a ‘trainee’ would sit in on the session. Sessions would also be recorded (with permission). If I had been scared I would have terminated the session. No one gets paid enough to put themselves in harms way or at physical risk.

So in the JY waxing cases, the therapists didn’t feel that they could carry out the treatments for various reasons. The law can’t make them.

I agree that the bakers must have been deliberately targeted in order to make a point. They could have gone to anyone else.

of course they were targeted. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

Indeed. It is useful to reflect on who is actually the bigot (according to dictionary definition) in this case).

It is relevant because it is about whether speech can be compelled.

If you can compel someone to state they support gay marriage when they don't you can equally compel someone to state 'transwomen are women' when the vast bulk of the population do not believe that.

Because it's looking at whether it's lawful for someone to say "no, I do not believe that and so I don't want to be forced to say it against my beliefs". Which is very relevant to feminism at the moment.

Explains very little to me - but thanks anyway.

IfIShouldFallFromGraceWithGod of course they were targeted. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

pixie because of freedom of expression, ie you can't force someone to express (verbally or any other way) a belief that they do not hold.

Hence, regardless of what anyone might think, I can't be forced to use female pronouns for a man, regardless of how they identify. Their identity, and the validation of that identity, does not trump my freedom of expression.

I’m a lot more sympathetic to the bakers since Wax My Balls.

If the cake makers lose activists of all areas will be targetting businesses and forcing them to write messages that don't agree with their personal beliefs
I know a couple of lesbian cooperatives. If they were cake makers, T shirt makers, embroiders they could be forced to write lesbians have penises
IMO the baker in this case was deliberately targetted

It would be interesting to try some other slogans out. Compelled speech: 'Transwomen are women' or 'adult human female', say.

but this is relevant to feminism how?

Because it's looking at whether it's lawful for someone to say "no, I do not believe that and so I don't want to be forced to say it against my beliefs". Which is very relevant to feminism at the moment.

This already went to the Supreme Court and the bakers won, so it's now going up to the European Court of Human Rights, is that right? (can't click link)

It's incredible how much money seems to be going to these men's case.

Ok... but this is relevant to feminism how?

the bakers won, as they didn't discriminate against the man placing the order on any basis, they did make his cake, they just refused to ice the words he requested on the basis that, as devout Christians, they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I understand that they were happy to provide the icing for him to ice his cake himself.

AnotherLass ECHR is seperately from the EU so not directly affected by Brexit