‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

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

What even would be illegal in terms of cake decoration?

So, you should be able to ask them to show a sex act? Or as others have said a message of "Gays are going to hell"? How about a swastika? None of those things are illegal.

pixie how were the bakers homophobic? Not supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you're homophobic.

No of course it doesn’t

The people in this incident are homophobic

I support your right to hold that opinion, but it could be false and be considered defamatory.

See? You can express views other people don’t agree with, but there may be consequences. Works for everyone.

This is very relevant to my case - as Girlguiding is asking leaders to say that men and boys are now girls and women. Which I don't believe.

And that if you defend person A's right to free speech then you agree with person A's opinions.

Yeah but why go out your way to defend them? And let’s face it, OP doesn’t care about their rights at all, OP just wants to start a discussion on free speech in relation to transgender issues - no problem with that, but then find something appropriate and relevant to base that on.
The people in this incident are homophobic - do I think they should have to write something on a cake that goes against their religious beliefs. No. Do I care enough about homophobics’ rights to free speech to defend them - definitely not. There’s more important people who are denied free speech who deserve our attention.

arguing your points about transgenderism and feminism by referring to an incident that is linked to homophobia - and implying that it is fine to have such views as we’re all entitled to our beliefs and opinions (and as a pp pointed out where does that end? Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?) is pretty dodgy ground.

Oh for goodness sake.

You cannot legislate people out of their personal feelings and beliefs. You can legislate against behaviour expressing those feelings and beliefs to the point of harm to others (and the line of what consists of actual 'harm' is currently under debate), but you cannot inflict one political 'rightthink' on the world. And no one should be seeking to do this. People have the right to their personal feelings and beliefs, they just don't have the right to actively harm others. And I would want 'harm' to not mean 'refused to ice words on a cake' or 'hurt my feelings', but mean actual harm, otherwise the whole concept becomes devalued and silly.

Point two: yes this is a serious case for feminists and the trans agenda. Of course it is. If someone goes to court and gets it established there that people no longer have a right to personal belief and can be compelled to perform speech and enact beliefs they don't hold under threat of legal punishment - for a start we just entered a totalitarian nightmare, and secondly the right to personal belief is all that's standing between women and having to pretend TWAW/ surrender single sex spaces regardless of their religion or disability or anything else.

These two situations are absolutely linked, they are absolutely relevant points to make.

Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?) is pretty dodgy ground

Of course people can express racist and sexist opinions. They can’t do so free from consequences, and they should accept that. No one has argued that an opinion is right or wrong. And you can’t ask people to only express the “right” opinion because what is “right”?

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.

Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?

Are you familiar with our present Prime Minister?

All jokes aside, regardless of my own views, yes people have the right not to be compelled to state 'women are equal to men' or 'black people are equal to white people'. It is the compulsion that is at issue, not whether or not we find views silly or vile or the people holding them to be ridiculous.

It is a point of principle that effects everyone, those we agree with as well as those we don't. Compelling speech is the action of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?)

Of course it bloody does in terms of your right to hold them.

Why is this so difficult??

pixie how were the bakers homophobic? Not supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you're homophobic. I would assume they also don't support any non-religious marriage because for them marriage is a sacred sacrament.

But as unicorn says, this element is a distraction from the actual point, which is compelled speech.

Spot on, dancer

I am stunned at how many people seem to think that free speech only applies to people they agree with.

And that if you defend person A's right to free speech then you agree with person A's opinions.

That's not how any of this works.

Which threads are these? I haven't seen any comments in FWR supporting homophobia.

Not supporting homophobia as such - but arguing your points about transgenderism and feminism by referring to an incident that is linked to homophobia - and implying that it is fine to have such views as we’re all entitled to our beliefs and opinions (and as a pp pointed out where does that end? Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?) is pretty dodgy ground. I agree the OP has very much missed the mark with this comparison and argument.

If someone asked me to ice a cake saying “Peter Tatchell is not a paedophile apologist” I would refuse.

Hippo - you are either wilfully misunderstanding or plain making shit up. No one has said those things. I'm sorry for you that you have to fabricate a side to argue against, but that's what you're doing. If this isn't wilful on your part then please go back and actually read what people have said.

[does detailed search of FWR looking for posts saying “homophobia is great” or similar]

Nope, nothing.

Gracious some posters are making this painful. It is not about gay marriage, it is not about religion. It is being compelled by law to write/ say something that fundamentally goes against what you believe in.

People are too caught up in the religious aspect to join the dots.

I'd be cool with a gay baker refusing to write "support straight pride"

I think it's just daft trying to force people to write stuff that they don't agree with. I don't think it helps anyone.

Whoever posted about the hairdresser, it's slightly different.

It's more like:

An Indian woman went to a hairdressers asking for her hair to be cut and then highlighted pink. The hairdresser agreed to do the cut, but said they wouldn't colour the hair because they believe hair should be natural colours.They'd refuse to colour hair regardless of whether the person was Indian/white/Asian, but would always do the cut.

(Obviously I don't think coloured hair is a common religious belief, but in terms of the service aspect, that's a closer analogy.)

to keep reading threads in Feminist Chat suggesting that homophobia is great

You what? I read FWR pretty closely, I'm obviously still managing to miss those threads.

There's an obvious, massive gulf of difference between respecting someone's personal right to not say something they disagree with (because compelled speech and 'right think' is a really scary thing) and actively 'supporting' their position. By not forcing someone to say something they personally, morally, disagree with, you are not 'supporting' their perceived 'bigotry'. Unless you believe that compelled recitation of rightthink is necessary to stamp out unbelievers.

Flip it around. Should trans bakers be forced to write 'women don't have penises' on a cake? Of course they bloody shouldn't. I agree with the sentiment: I believe in the sentiment, I absolutely also agree with the right of people to say no, I don't agree with that and it's not a message I'm willing to repeat.

The guy bought a cake. He was not refused service. He was offered icing to write the message himself. This is purely and simply about his right to force someone to act against their beliefs if the acronym 'lgbt' is invoked. I'm not for that. I'm lesbian and I'm absolutely not for that. Most LGBT people are grown up enough to cope with people holding opinions they don't share.

I also find comments comparing gay people to paedophiles and calling the belief that gay and lesbian people should have the same legal rights as straight people “political propaganda” incredibly disturbing.

What a load of disingenuous claptrap. No one has done that. But you know that, really.

There is no evidence that they refused to write the message because he was gay. How would they even know whether he was gay or straight? The objection was purely on writing the message, and that would have applied no matter who was requesting it.