‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

Early is just ignoring everyone who has pointed out the glaringly obvious consequences.

Early so, on that basis you would think it fine for a bakery run by a transwoman to be obliged to ice a cake with the words 'transwomen are men', for example? Or for a woman baker to be forced to ice the words 'stoning is the correct punishment for immoral women'?

Absolutely tickety-boo by you, right? And pixie, for that matter?

And twitter silence women on an almost daily basis.

They served him. They didn't like his sentiment.

"I have my own beliefs. But that's not what my case has ever been about," he said.

"This is about limited companies being somehow able to pick and choose which customers they will serve.

"It's such a dangerous precedent."

From the link:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

How can you possibly compare a local, family run bakery to Twitter?

It's interesting, both results have ups and downs. Clearly the bakers views are not alligned with most people (hopefully) but they are entitled to their views and business isn't about being compelled to offer services, there should always be a willing buyer and willing seller.

But looking from the other point of view, does that mean that Twitter etc are allowed and should be supported in their right to remove posters and posts based purely on what they find appropriate?

A lever to what though?

I think to conflate this particular case with abortion rights and gay marriage is a dangerous precedent. I have to state right away that I think the DUP is toxic politics.

This is about icing on a fecking cake. How petty can you get?

early and the likes appear to believe a business should have to ice cakes with absolutely any slogan including:
Be kind to baby rapists, they’re only human.
Some people like fingering three year olds - get over it!
Some people think blacks look like monkeys - get over it!
And they’ll be ok to do this cause, y’know, they can secretly be thinking the people ordering the cakes are ‘twats’.

Is that right early?

I'm a business writer and translator and also build and maintain websites for my writing clients.

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will refuse to create an e-book for a client espousing views like "trans people are an abomination" or "foreigners are all dirty criminals", I won't translate "Der Stürmer" pamphlets for an English neo-Nazi group and I wouldn't build a website for an anti-vaccination campaign group or a fundraiser for the legal defence of an anti-abortion activist who torched a clinic.

And I am thoroughly disgusted by those who think freedom of speech only applies to the views that they like and definitely not to those who dissent from majority opinions they agree with.

No, as Rosa Luxembourg said, freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.

Freedoms that only the right kinds of people may avail themselves of, those are not freedoms, but privileges for a select few. And who's to guarantee that they continue to belong to that select few even when majority opinions change or a different party rules?

But what we have as per the European Convention On Human Rights are Freedoms that apply to all. Even to those whose views I find offensive and upsetting.

I lived in a country that didn't have them. Never again.

And the belief that you can compel speech in this way is naive in the extreme. Services will simply provide a list of slogans that they are prepared to provide. So if I was a baker abortion is murder would not be on the list of slogans I can make. You haven't changed my beliefs in the slightest because that is an impossible task.

It’s completly different to the ball waxing case. If that case was ‘we do wax balls but are refusing to do yours solely because we/I don’t like transwomen’ that would not be acceptable either

It was more about not liking to touch a creepy stranger's balls and cock. Is that ok with you?

A cyber security company recently refused to provide a service to 8chan on the grounds that they couldn't morally support the sites content. Is that OK?

One of the banks refused to let a GC group open an account with them because the didn't support their goals. Is that OK?

It cuts both ways unfortunately. If we are free not to endorse/ provide support for anyone else's beliefs, then equally no one else has to do the same for us. But if we compel people to do so, we can also be compelled against our beliefs.

I also think refusing the pill or abortion because of ‘religious beliefs’ if it’s in your job description to do so, shouldn’t be accepted.

It happens all the time within the NHS. I was refused an abortion at my doctors because they wanted me to see how nature develops - this was a request to have an abortion to prevent a third miscarriage. I had two children under 5 by then and two previous miscarriages. I ended up going to BPAS to have that abortion. Phone call made to them whilst standing in a phone box. Will be forever grateful for that service. I never wanted to go through a third miscarriage.

Each of you, for himself or herself, by himself or herself, and on his or her own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government or politician. Each must decide for himself or herself alone what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man, to decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor. It is traitorous both against yourself and your country.
Let men label you as they may, if you alone of all the nation decide one way, and that way be the right way by your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country, hold up your head for you have nothing to be ashamed of.
It doesn’t matter what the press says. It doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. It doesnn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. Republics are founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe in. no matter the odds or consequences.
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move. Your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and tell the whole world:
“No, you move.“ - Mark Twain

I would donate to crowd funding for Ashers over this if they have to pay for any of this.

So, sticking to speech here, if we CAN say what we want:
I can say that a man who comes to me and wants to become a Guide leader, and says that he identifies as a woman, is not in fact a woman, but is a man.
And another leader is perfectly free to say "yes, this person is a woman, they have always been a woman and their biology is irrelevant, in fact it is female biology" and to say "yes they can be a leader".

And likewise parents would be free to say "yes I believe that this person is a woman and suitable to be a leader" or "no, I want a female leader for my child and I do not believe that this person is a woman".

I think businesses and individuals should be treated differently anyway as long as the individual does not have to physically do anything that is not in the realms of their business.

Waxing balls - not what the business does, can deny.

Decorating a cake with a customers request - what the business does, shouldn’t deny unless illegal.

It’s completly different to the ball waxing case. If that case was ‘we do wax balls but are refusing to do yours solely because we/I don’t like transwomen’ that would not be acceptable either.

Earlywalker, how about if, rather than balls, it was bikini line waxing, or leg waxing. Should a woman be forced to wax a transwoman's legs because he says they're a woman? Even though she only believes females are women? It's just legs, right?

I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace

This basically exactly summarises the message imparted by a lot of the businesses/ politicians saying "TWAW".

Pixie, is me not supporting surrogacy homophobic, since it's the only way gay men can become biological parents? Should I be forced to say "Support Surrogacy, it's wonderful" on a cake?

If they forced the baker ......to come along to a protest on it, then fair enough, absolutely not

That is effectively what they were doing.

Anyone on here supporting this appeal is effectively supporting compelled speech.

He wasn't even campaigning against gay marriage, he was simply holding a neutral position, as he's fully entitled to do.

To be clear, if you’re going to be consistent you have to be happy that absolutely anything could be requested to be iced on a cake and could not be refused.