‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

refuse a customer because of religious beliefs

This case might be because of religious beliefs which for you are a “complete work of fiction” (and how lucky that you are actually free to state that), but not all personal beliefs are religious, or even universal.

I don’t believe TWAW so should I be compelled to chant or ice or sew or stitch or print that yes TWAW?

If you believe TWAW should you be compelled to chant or ice or sew or or stitch or print that TWAM?

What about pro-choice v pro-life? Both are legal and valid points of view.

What about a whole lot of other things, including “religion is a complete work of fiction”

Also I would say I am not sure about slippery slope metaphor. Society decides whats offensive and what isn't, I don't think we are talking about writing whatever you like but if it isn't offensive or illegal than I am not sure we should allow personal prejudice to govern.

god, the number of people completely failing to understand the point of this case is depressing.

The baker was serving each customer the same.

They would have refused to write the slogan regardless of who asked for it.

This is a difficult issue, and there are strong arguments on both sides but if I think if I was a hairdresser and I cut white peoples hair but refused to cut Indian peoples hair would that be discrimination? I think so, so if I was a baker and I would be willing to make a cake that says support marriage, but not willing to include the word gay would that be discrimination? I do feel if you are in the service industry, than you have to put aside your personal bias and serve each customer the same. Homophobia is still a disease that needs to be fought but is sadly becoming more aggressive.
If the bakers were happy to put 'Men are Great' but unwilling to put 'Women are great' because it went against their personal beliefs I would be deeply offended.

While I disagree with the bakers' views about marriage, I would not wish to be forced to provide propaganda for extremists either. As Datun says above, this is a slippery slope because it applies equally to "children are so sexy, rape fantasies gives me orgasms, Hitler was right, etc" - compelled speech laws are for this reason, undemocratic.

Again, they did not refuse a service to the customer. They refused to write a political slogan that they disagreed with. That's the issue here.

If you're allowed to refuse to serve a gay person based on what you read in the Bible then we may as well allow a racist to refuse to serve a black person because he believes what he read in The Turner Diaries.

They. Didn't. Refuse. To. Serve. The. Gay. Customer.

Minnie again - the bakers do not refuse to serve anyone. They made the man his cake.

Five years later and the complainant is still misrepresenting this as limited companies picking and choosing which customers they will serve.

Vexatious litigant, enabled by a system insufficiently proofed against twits like this wasting time and resources. And yes, the one result that prat may succeed in achieving is compelled/forced service of belief.

That'll work out well, won't it?

Teddybear45

Yaniv is an extreme example, and if he were the only one I could dismiss his behaviour as the ravings of an unstable individual.

Unfortunately there are numerous cases across numerous countries of small businesses run by religious individuals being targeted. There are numerous cases of religious people's views being dismissed as 'bigotry' in relation to education or healthcare.

I am really, really not a fan of religion. I have lived my whole life as a neutral in an area where everyone is pigeonholed as Catholic or Protestant according to the school they were sent to aged five. I have fought that bias my whole life, for me, for my children. But for goodness sake people are allowed their personal beliefs and I will fight for their right to hold them as much as I fight for my right not to.

Why should anyone be allowed to refuse a customer because of religious beliefs. Religion is, after all, a complete work of fiction for which there is not a shred of evidence. If you're allowed to refuse to serve a gay person based on what you read in the Bible then we may as well allow a racist to refuse to serve a black person because he believes what he read in The Turner Diaries.

This isn’t like refusing to serve lesbians at a bar because they are wearing Adult Hunan Female t-shirts because that is denying someone service because of their beliefs; it’s more like refusing to make Adult Human t-shirts when you don’t agree with it, which is entirely reasonable.

Fekko maybe there could be a Bakers Union arrangement where members cooperated in icing each other's slogans? Maybe a bit of a stopper for the vexatious litigants, though.

I've always supported the right of the bakers to not write the message they do not agree with. It has far reaching implications when people are compelled to say or write things they do not believe in.

They didn't refuse to serve the person. They were happy to bake the cake and decorate it, just not write the slogan.
Respect for people's beliefs and personal standpoint work both ways. If I was a baker, I would never be comfortable writing something against abortion or glorifying violence or rape or prejudice against immigrants - even in jest. Other people might be ok with it or might be willing to do so for the right price, but I don't see why I should be compelled to write messages that I find goes against my deeply held beliefs and opinions.

@ArnoldWhatshisknickers - it is bigoted and exactly that the trans activist in Canada is doing. He deliberately targeted Sikh and Muslim ‘one woman band’ beauticians who travel to the customer’s house (or invite them to theirs). For them keeping their clientele female (whether born or transitioned completely) was vital. Men posing as women was a risk they couldn’t take for their own safety - but rather than try to understand this as most trans women did in Canada, the activist instead sued them for discrimination.

I'm getting to a point where I am pretty sick to the back teeth of religious people being targeted.

I never, ever thought I'd feel that way given my own background and issues with religion but here we are. Well done vexatious litigants.

Wonder when people will target gay bakers with requests for ‘no gay marriage’ cakes.

A lot of the activists here are targeting small business they know are are run by religious Christians / Muslims / Sikhs.

That sounds ever so slightly, what's the word again? Oh yes, BIGOTED.

A lot of the activists here are targeting small business they know are are run by religious Christians / Muslims / Sikhs. They probably also know that even though a lot of small Hindu and Jewish business owners also don’t support gay marriage, they tend to come from immigrant backgrounds that won’t turn away custom - hence why they tend to be less targeted. It’s unfair and probably won’t stop until a gay business is asked to support het rights.

If they win this, it means the baker could also be asked to write say, children are so sexy, rape fantasies gives me orgasms, Hitler was right, etc on a cake. I can think of any number of things that people would find offensive, but could then not refuse to do, if they win this.

Agreeing with gay marriage is completely irrelevant to wanting someone to be compelled to write something they personally disagree with. The next thing will be something you disagree with. But you've already set the precedent that you have no say in it.

Arguing over the merits of the actual message misses the point entirely.

Once you set the precedent that compelled speech is legal, no one will give a fuck what you think, or whether you agree. You won't be asked.

Sara and pixie the bakers did not discriminate against the buyer as they did not refuse to serve him on the basis that he was gay (if he actually was, and if they actually knew either way.( They would have done the same if he'd been straight. They merely refused to ice a slogan that was contrary to their protected beliefs as Christians. Christians believe that marriage is a sacred vow made before God between a man and a woman. You do understand that this position doesn't make them homophobes.

Compelled speech has no place in a democracy.

Had this complaint been upheld, it would put gay bakers in a position where, if asked, they could be compelled to write "Save Ulster From Sodomy", "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman" or any other anti gay message requested by a religious body.

Exactly!

This doesn't only work one way you know.

It's not that they couldn't handle serving the public, it 5hat they refused to write something. They were happy to bake a cake for the customer. Had this complaint been upheld, it would put gay bakers in a position where, if asked, they could be compelled to write "Save Ulster From Sodomy", "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman" or any other anti gay message requested by a religious body.

I was by the initial ruling and relieved when the Supreme Court overturned it. No one should be compelled to write slogans that they do not agree with.

What would an interracial wedding cake look like exactly? Mine just looked like a wedding cake tbh. I didn’t feel the need for a slogan.

Personally I don't see the difference between a baker refusing to put support interracial marriage or support gay marriage.

@SaraNade absolutely.