‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

[FeminismandWomensFights]

This case is an important one to watch for those interested legal protections for personal freedom of belief. It is now going back to court.
Gist seems to be that the complainant tried to order a cake with a message on it saying ‘support gay marriage’ from a baker who doesn’t support gay marriage. Bakery says no to that specific order.
Complainant feels it’s about discrimination because he couldn’t make that supplier supply him with that specific message on a cake. Baker says that any different message on a cake would’ve been completely fine to provide to him, it’s not personal discrimination, it’s about people having a right not to endorse political statements that they don’t believe in. (Possibly making arguments about religious freedom of expression too, but I haven’t read into the details). It‘s easy to see how this case could relate to GC people’s rights, at work and so on.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

@SaraNade absolutely.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?