Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal

[announced]

Everyone in the US have the right to refuse service to anyone.

The price you pay for doing this is now the baker is known as "that guy who refused to serve people cause they are gay"

That's the stupid thing though. The bakery has served gay customers before, they only refused to write an message they found offensive on their cakes. Because of the lawsuit they'll be known as gay hating bigots when they really aren't

[Malcho]

The people who try to make Christians and such put messages on cakes that conflict with their deepest held faith and make them go through hell on earth like this for shits and giggles are demonic. It's equivalent to tricking or forcing Muslims to eat pork. At some point, you have to realize that you're causing immense suffering and turmoil to people who are not hurting you and are just trying to adhere to their faith and coexist without "sending themselves to hell."

This is coming from another gay man.

[Krastyn]

When you buy a cake with a message on it, it is not the baker actually sending the message. Do you think bakers know all the little kids who get "Happy Birthday" on their cake? or do you think all those bakers are really going to miss someone they never met if they iced a cake with "Congrats on the new job, we'll miss you?"

It's a bad faith argument that those Christians are making in order to discriminate against their potential clients. Religion shouldn't be a loophole in order to let bigots break the law.

Except you don't understand the law.

There is nothing illegal about a Christian baker refusing to sell a cake that says "Support Gay Marriage"
There is nothing illegal about a Republican baker refusing to sell a cake that says "Fuck Republicans"
There is nothing illegal about a baker who is a Yankees fan refusing to sell a cake that says "Go Red Socks"
There is nothing illegal about a baker refusing to sell a cake that says "Happy Birthday"

You can't force a business to do something that they wouldn't do for any other person. You can call it a bad business practice, but there is nothing illegal about it, nor should there be.

[Jinpachi]

Vendors can do whatever they want if they're willing to deal with the consequences. Honestly i don't see them losing much business over this, but im sure they considered the possibility when they were deciding to take it to the supreme court. Honestly a savvy baker would advertise that they are happy to bake cakes with any and all messages; that will simultaneously bring customers to the shop, and prevent any litigious action against them. It's fucked up that we live in a society where you have to worry about that in the first place.

[Super Kami Dende]

Good. It was an absolute idiotic case to begin with. Just take your business elsewhere.

[Jinpachi]

That's the law in the US and we have to respect that even if the people who abuse it are stupid.

I got refused service a lot in the US because I was an arab and I didn't care.

I'm sorry that happened to ya bruh. For me, commerce is one of the best ways we can get to know one another. Especially through food

- - - Updated - - -

There are various degrees of faith/tolerance in Christians. I agree that most are fine with the LGBT community, but they should still reserve the right to decline baking a cake or writing a message on them that they find offensive due to artistic integrity. This is not about bigotry. If someone asked you to bake and draw something offensive or just plain ugly you should be able to politely decline without fear of getting sued.
It's like going to a Muslim bakery and trying to have them bake a cake of the prophet Muhammad stating that he is also in favour of homosexuality.

Do you want a solution? FIND another bakery that will accommodate your request and give them your money instead.

In today's victim culture that kind of common sense is anathema

[Super Kami Dende]

The bakers are still homophobic bigoted shitheads, but they're within their rights on this one.

One would assume forcing people to do something they do not wish to do would also be bigoted. So the Gay couple were just as bigoted shitheads towards the couples Religious beliefs regardless of how silly they are.

Also not agreeing with Same-Sex marriage =/= Homophobic. I've known many people who give zero shits about people being Gay but strongly believe in Man/Woman being the Marriage guidelines.

[kail]

Everyone in the US have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Almost but not 100% true. Discrimination laws still exist but if anyone was caught violating them, it would be blatant and obvious. That and publicly funded sectors are most likely forced to be more flexible in servicing the public. Police, for example, cannot refuse to do their job and help others when they don't feel like it.

That and the OP is based in the UK.

[Beloren]

I'm with the court on this. It's not like it was a cake for a gay wedding so they were discriminating against people. The cake was a general "Support Gay Marriage" cake, I'd wager specifically ordered from there to test the shop. It's just the same if the cake had said "Abortions are murder" or "Foetusses have no right to life" or something.

100% Agreed, and I am male, with a boyfriend I hope to take to the next stage. The baker has every right to refuse. Can you imagine going to a muslim baker and asking him to bake a cake and write the message "I support gay marriage"

WE expect people to be supportive of us and what we believe, but we show no consideration about what they believe. Even if i do not agree with their view, I at least understand they have right to have their own view.

Let's flip it round, so a christian dude comes to a cake shop owend by a married gay couple, and asks them to bake a cake with the slogan ban gay marriage - would I expect them to win if they take me to court for saying no? Off course not.

Supreme court ruling certainly does not make me feel like a second class citizen, not everyone has to love me and accept me for me to feel validated. It would be another thing if they were violent and abusive, but then that is hardly means they should then bake my cake, i can press charges for verbal assault and abuse, but nothing to do with the cake.

Anyway..that's my view.

[Torto]

100% Agreed, and I am male, with a boyfriend I hope to take to the next stage. The baker has every right to refuse. Can you imagine going to a muslim baker and asking him to bake a cake and write the message "I support gay marriage"

WE expect people to be supportive of us and what we believe, but we show no consideration about what they believe. Even if i do not agree with their view, I at least understand they have right to have their own view.

Let's flip it round, so a christian dude comes to a cake shop owend by a married gay couple, and asks them to bake a cake with the slogan ban gay marriage - would I expect them to win if they take me to court for saying no? Off course not.

Supreme court ruling certainly does not make me feel like a second class citizen, not everyone has to love me and accept me for me to feel validated. It would be another thing if they were violent and abusive, but then that is hardly means they should then bake my cake, i can press charges for verbal assault and abuse, but nothing to do with the cake.

Anyway..that's my view.

I'm really not seeing a difference between not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding and not wanting to make a cake with a slogan you don't agree with. Both this case and the US one were a win for common sense and individual rights.

[Beloren]

I'm really not seeing a difference between not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding and not wanting to make a cake with a slogan you don't agree with. Both this case and the US one were a win for common sense and individual rights.

Agreed, hey, i'm upset people don't won't make a cake for me and my boyfriend because they disagree with to males getting it on, - so i get in such a hissy fit, i take them to court? I mean for real... even if it had nothing to do with thier beliefs and they did it just because they didn't like me, do i thien take them to court too?

I mean today we are at a whole new level of ridcioulousness, I am no on hate and no on violence, but lets be real, if i don't want to do something for a christian dude because he doesn't support gay marriage, i certainly don't want him to take me to court and win. I have a right to agree or disagreee, as i have a right to bake a cake for who I want to and who i don' want to. If my coutnry truly is free, then i won't be penalised for saying no to someone I don't want to bake for...

and fyi, I am upset that people won't wanna bake a cake for my wedding for my boyfriend because they don't believe in this, I also am upset when people don't like me, whether it's because of my personality, something i did or say, or because i have a boyfriend whom I love, but i'm not going to sue them over it.

[anyaka21]

This is actually pretty consistent, even with US laws on freedom of speech and religion. People have a right to their beliefs adn people can and do purposefully try and use shops like this to further their own agendas. Happened in America and our Supreme Court ruled the same way.

Basically, you cannot force someone to make go against their own particular religious beliefs and freedom of speech. And in these cases, they can make the cakes, but if people want them to decorate, or force their own beliefs on the people making said cakes, and go against their convictions, then they aren't allowed too.

That said, it should also go all ways. You wouldn't be able to force a muslim to make a Jesus or Jewish cake, or making an atheist make a cake proclaiming anything christian as well. Fair is fair.

[Endus]

One would assume forcing people to do something they do not wish to do would also be bigoted. So the Gay couple were just as bigoted shitheads towards the couples Religious beliefs regardless of how silly they are.

That's not what bigotry means, no. It would help if you didn't use words incorrectly.

Also not agreeing with Same-Sex marriage =/= Homophobic. I've known many people who give zero shits about people being Gay but strongly believe in Man/Woman being the Marriage guidelines.

And those people are homophobes. They DO give some shits about gay people, as demonstrated by their hostility to gay people marrying.

It's like trying to say "I'm not racist, I just don't think blacks should marry whites". Nope, that's racist. You've just internalized and normalized your hatred, and can't see it for what it is.

[Spectral]

I used to think that conservatives that were against gay marriage on the basis that it's a slippery slope weren't just incorrect, but complete cranks. I literally couldn't think of what it would even be a slippery slope to - marriage equality seemed like more or less the end of the line, possibly with some other legal protections in employment or healthcare settings being necessary as well. Instead, we were immediately treated to a shift to the sort of desire to compel speech that's been the core of each of these baking arguments.

That shift has made it clear to me that I was just flat out wrong that the argument was all about just equal rights - no, it turns out it really is about power, about attempting to bring the force of the government against people that are insufficiently tolerant or have certain religious views. I really, genuinely thought that LGBT movements were mostly about freedoms, not about trying impose things on others. I was wrong.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

That shift has made it clear to me that I was just flat out wrong that the argument was all about just equal rights - no, it turns out it really is about power, about attempting to bring the force of the government against people that are insufficiently tolerant or have certain religious views. I really, genuinely thought that LGBT movements were mostly about freedoms, not about trying impose things on others. I was wrong.

Hey, look everyone, yet another declarative statement from someone who doesn't have a clue as to what's going on! Imagine him knowing what exactly the Alliance Defending Freedom stands for (the worst being the forced sterilization of trans people) or the fact that they've already begun to roll back marriage benefits -- including spousal benefits and adoption access -- while pushing laws, and defending them in court, that have already taken "religious freedom" to its inevitable conclusion -- outright theft from someone who is LGBT.

Had he done so there might have been something to discuss given its fairly clear exactly what sort of legal precedent the ADF is establishing with all of these cases.

[Endus]

I used to think that conservatives that were against gay marriage on the basis that it's a slippery slope weren't just incorrect, but complete cranks. I literally couldn't think of what it would even be a slippery slope to - marriage equality seemed like more or less the end of the line, possibly with some other legal protections in employment or healthcare settings being necessary as well. Instead, we were immediately treated to a shift to the sort of desire to compel speech that's been the core of each of these baking arguments.

That shift has made it clear to me that I was just flat out wrong that the argument was all about just equal rights - no, it turns out it really is about power, about attempting to bring the force of the government against people that are insufficiently tolerant or have certain religious views. I really, genuinely thought that LGBT movements were mostly about freedoms, not about trying impose things on others. I was wrong.

"Compelled speech" is a complete myth. There is no situation where the government mandates your speech. (Edit: At least, outside of things like subpoenaed testimony, which I'm sure you're not talking about but I'm editing in before someone gets all semantic about it)

At best, you're noticing that some types of speech are not protected speech. But do you have the same issue with people making threats of violence? Slandering others? Inciting riots? Or is it just this particular form of harmful speech that you want to be allowed to engage in?

If defamation laws aren't "compelled speech", then nothing you're going to point out could qualify either.

[Daedius]

The activist specifically targeted the baker, similarly to someone else doing the same in the US, and to that I say fuck the shit stirrers feigning victimhood of discrimination.

[Kraenen]

That's not what bigotry means, no. It would help if you didn't use words incorrectly.



And those people are homophobes. They DO give some shits about gay people, as demonstrated by their hostility to gay people marrying.

It's like trying to say "I'm not racist, I just don't think blacks should marry whites". Nope, that's racist. You've just internalized and normalized your hatred, and can't see it for what it is.

Why assume it's hatred? I think the point the other guy was trying to make was that it was a 'positive' belief in having a marriage between man/woman instead of a 'negative' belief in restricting marriage away from everyone else. It's almost like saying female/male bathrooms are based on the hatred of the other sex. No, you can obviously be exclusionary for reasons other than hatred.

[Spectral]

"Compelled speech" is a complete myth. There is no situation where the government mandates your speech. (Edit: At least, outside of things like subpoenaed testimony, which I'm sure you're not talking about but I'm editing in before someone gets all semantic about it)

At best, you're noticing that some types of speech are not protected speech. But do you have the same issue with people making threats of violence? Slandering others? Inciting riots? Or is it just this particular form of harmful speech that you want to be allowed to engage in?

If defamation laws aren't "compelled speech", then nothing you're going to point out could qualify either.

I really don't know how you can make any sort of plausible argument that requiring a shop like Masterpiece to create an item that they don't want to create isn't compelled speech. I'm sure you've concocted a tortured legal explanation for that, but you really can't expect that to pass the smell test for an interlocutor that doesn't already buy it.

[Endus]

Why assume it's hatred? I think the point the other guy was trying to make was that it was a 'positive' belief in having a marriage between man/woman instead of a 'negative' belief in restricting marriage away from everyone else. It's almost like saying female/male bathrooms are based on the hatred of the other sex. No, you can obviously be exclusionary for reasons other than hatred.

If you wanted to make a comparison to bathrooms, it's like if you had bathrooms for whites, but not for blacks. We saw that, historically. And it was unequivocally racist.

What you're describing is a negative belief; that marriage should exist, but that same-sex couples should be denied access.

I really don't know how you can make any sort of plausible argument that requiring a shop like Masterpiece to create an item that they don't want to create isn't compelled speech. I'm sure you've concocted a tortured legal explanation for that, but you really can't expect that to pass the smell test for an interlocutor that doesn't already buy it.

Because "serving a customer" is not "speech", in any legal sense whatsoever. That should be pretty darned obvious.

Also, the owners of Masterpiece Bakery chose to open a bakery, and serve the public. Doing so carries obligations, and one of those is not denying service on the grounds of membership in a protected class. If you don't want to be held to those obligations, you don't have to run a public accommodation; nothing is compelling that.

The only "compelling" is that Masterpiece obey the law, and speech was not a component.

And before you bring up the SCOTUS decision, I want to note that their ruling was not that Masterpiece acted within the law, it was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not properly adjudicate the owner's arguments based on their religion. In fact, Kennedy wrote that the Supreme Court would likely have sided with the CCRC if they had given those claims due consideration. Freedom of speech wasn't part of the Supreme Court ruling, at all.


Edit: If you want a clear distinction between the Ashers case here and the Masterpiece cases, Ashers refused a specific message. Not service. Ashers would not make a cake with that message for any customer, because they disagree strongly with that message. Masterpiece was perfectly willing to make the same cakes described in the complaints against them (because there's more than one), just not for that particular customer, because they were gay, or transgender. That's crossing a line.