Please fail to use words unless you understand them
But the legislation does not just say “you must serve gay people” it says a person offering goods, facilities or services cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and it makes clear that discriminating includes putting people of a particular sexual orientation at a disadvantage compared to people of a different orientation. In this case the court decided that refusing to print a message saying “Support Gay Marriage” was direct discrimination. As it says in the summary of judgement:
The shop offers a service - to customise cakes - and the legislation, passed by the democratically elected parliament, explicitly says you can’t pick and choose who you provide this service to on the grounds of their sexual preference. You might not like it but that is the democratically agreed view of the people of the United Kingdom expressed through their representatives in Parliament As it also says in the summary of judgement:
???
Go back to post 15, which started this exchange. Did you somehow get the idea that I want the state to force custom content creation? If not, where are you going with this line of discussion?
This is a totally accurate summation of that court case, brought to the Supreme Court by conservatives in a Republican-led effort to decriminalize homosexuality. I remember how the damn libruls at the time were screaming about the unfairness of it all, demanding that everyone be forced to have gay sex. But nope, upright conservatives said, “Please, Supreme Court, we just want to live and let live!”
Scalia famously agreed when he voted in favor of legalizing homosexual acts. “I may personally disapprove of the gays,” he wrote, “but I recognize that true conservatism means a respect for personal liberty.” Indeed, that quote is behind a lot of the librul hatred of Scalia.
This case is a good example of my genuine confusion on the logical reasoning in these cases:
- A baker makes customized cakes. 2. The customer wants a customized cake with a particular political message. 3. That political message is largely (exclusively?) to the benefit of a particular protected class. 4. The customer is also member of that class. 5. The baker disagrees with the message. 6. The baker does not disagree with the opposite political message. 7. The baker refuses to make the cake. 8. That refusal is because of the customer’s membership in the protected class.
There is a leap from 7 to 8 that I just can’t get my head around. Is there a different result if the case was ordered by a heterosexual gay rights activist? If not, why not? The opinion says that the court below found that the baker knew the customer was gay. What if he didn’t?
The other part you quote says that the answer is for the baker to refuse to publish any political messages. But he can’t limit himself to political opinions he agrees with, because that’s “distinguishing . . . between those who may or may not receive the service.” Leave aside that it assumes a homogeneity of belief among protected communities, why isn’t this discrimination on the basis of message, not customer?
Some folks in the thread (ahem, Flyer) seem to be confused about whether this is happening in the US or the UK. It’s the latter, specifically Northern Ireland. Quoting US laws and cases isn’t particularly relevant.
That said, I confess uneasiness with this decision. I’m generally okay with a person refusing to convey an actual message they disagree with, especially if they’re not receiving massive government subsidies (airwaves offered on the cheap, for instance). In the opposite circumstances–a gay baker refuses to make a cake that says “Gays will burn in hell”–I’m okay with that. So I can’t see a reason I should support government intervention when a baker refuses to publish an opinion I agree with.
Nitpick: this has nothing to do with Ireland or Irish law. As Left Hand of Dorkness pointed out in the post above it’s British law that’s relevant as the incident took place in Northern Ireland, a part of the UK.
I’m trying to think of a precise example that highlights the problem here, try this:
Clearly, I can run a Christian bookstore, with no obligation to sell non-Christian books.
But the judgment seems to imply that I cannot run a business that offers to customize tee-shirts or cakes with any verse from the Christian bible, but nothing else.
That seems to be what the judgment implies, and I don’t agree with it. The distinction simply doesn’t logically hold up. The correct distinction should be that you can’t discriminate against people, but you can choose to run a business that only provides partisan generalized political/religious content, whether off-the-shelf or customized.
Normal warning IANAL but as I understood the judgement whether the actual customer was gay was irrelevant so your premise 8 is incorrect. The message on the cake was of benefit to gay community and the reason they refused to do it was because it benefited that community. As the summary put it
nm
Maybe it’s just the American in me … but any business should have only one objective … maximizing honest profit … most anytime a business takes a moral stand, it comes at a direct cost … in this case, not just the gay community, but also the non-gays who support the gay community will not longer do business with the bakery … that’s less profit … what’s the point of being in business if we’re just going to lose money …
This discussion is about the legality though … and here in the USA, in general it is the business who must prove their defense against discrimination charges … if it had nothing to do with the couple being gay, then why didn’t you make the gay-pride cake … saying the business is morally against gays is going to fail … that stands against the very reason these laws are in place …
Again - there’s a difference between serving a *generic *product, and a *customized *message. Should the Chicago Cubs be required to sell “Allah Akhbar” customized Cubs jerseys if Muslim Cubs fans so demand?
But I don’t think this is quite the correct distinction.
If I can run a store that sells only pre-printed conservative Christian books, it’s a bizarre idea that I cannot run a store that offers to custom print only (say) Christian bible verses or partisan conservative political slogans (but nothing inconsistent with conservative Christian teaching) on tee-shirts or mousepads or cakes whatever else.
It seems to me that I should be completely free to offer custom products that express only partisan abstract/generalized political or religious views only with a particular bias. But what I cannot do is offer products that are customized to people, and exclude a protected class of people from that service.
So I think the judgment here was simply wrong.
If the shop will put “Tom & Sue’s wedding” on a cake, they must be willing to put “Tom & Frank’s wedding” on a cake too. But the shop should not be forced to print a cake expressing the generalized view “gay marriage is awesome”.
Whereas I think maybe it’s just the American in me, but any business should have the objectives that the owners want it to have, not the objective you impose on them.
I’m finding it a little hard to appreciate the scale of the injustice of either outcome - either the baker having to make the cake, or the couple not able to get the cake they want from that baker.
This is only a cake, but surely you can see the significance of the principles involved?
On the one hand:
It’s late at night and raining, a same-sex couple is looking for a motel room, they find one with a “Vacancy” sign lit up, they walk in, and are told they are not welcome because the owner does not approve of their relationship.
On the other hand:
For reasons that are surely obvious, it’s extremely problematic for the state to require business owners to endorse, explicitly or implicitly, any views that they don’t hold. There are certain circumstances where overriding concerns might require this, but the precise extent and limits of those circumstances must be justified and clarified by statute and case law.
Yes, but as gay marriage becomes normalized, even boringly conventional, it’s the baker and those like him who will be left behind. The stigma will shift to them.
This particular circumstance invites more ambiguity because decorating a cake is arguably an artistic endeavor requiring the creative skills of the baker, unlike (for example) a company that sells prepacked uncustomized wedding cakes refusing to sell on to a gay couple, or refusing to rent out a room, or some similar noncreative enterprise.
In this very particular circumstance, the issues are not sufficiently clear-cut for me to feel much principled outrage regardless of the outcome. I personally think the baker is a fool on two bases - turning down business and letting his business be guided by scripture best abandoned to mythology - but it’s also mingled with my not-particularly-high regard for personalized wedding cakes and indeed the multiple and pointless expenses of weddings in general.
This is an issue I’m okay with letting time and markets sort out.
Does that mean the bakers should take unruly children beyond the gates of the city and stone them?
Do these bakers also refrain from eating seafood?
Etc.
I tend to find that this arguement is rather disinginuous when the person in question picks and chooses what religious rules to follow.
[Quote=t-bonham@scc.net]
For heaven’s sake! Didn’t we go through this 50 years ago, with segregated businesses refusing to serve blacks?
And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: if you are operating a public business, you have to serve all members of the public. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business.
So if only those lunch counters in 1960 North Carolinas had thought to say “Unlike the generic hamburgers sold by McDonalds, every hamburger here is customized to the order of the customer”, then they could have got away with refusing to serve those black customers?
55 years later, it’s still astonishing to what nitpicking extents people will go to just to defend their bigotry.
All religious people are like that. Good luck trying to rid the world of religious customs.