Queer cake

[Gob]

A Christian-run bakery is facing legal action from a Government agency for refusing to produce a cake carrying a picture of the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan “support gay marriage”.



Ashers Baking Co, based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland, cancelled an order for a novelty cake with a picture of the puppets arm in arm printed onto the icing saying that it went against the directors’ religious beliefs.

They believe that producing the cake with the slogan and the logo of QueerSpace, a gay rights group the would-be customer supports, would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of gay marriage in the province, and go against their religious convictions.

But the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has now written to the firm claiming that it is breaking the law.

A letter signed by the legal office orders the firm to “remedy your illegal discrimination” within seven days or be taken to court by the commission.

It claimed that refusing to print the cake amounted to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation against the man who placed the order.

The Christian institute, which is supporting the bakery, say it is not discriminatory for managers to refuse to endorse a political campaign.

Gay marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK in which it is not on the statute book.

[Crackpot]

and they're doing this by sexualizing characters from a show meant for toddlers.

[Long Run]

Ernie is standing on Sesame Street holding a banana in his ear.

Bert comes up and asks, "Errrnieeee, why do you have a banana in your ear?"

Ernie says, "To keep the gays off Sesame Street, Bert."

Bert replies: "There aren't any gays on Sesame Street."

Ernie: "See Bert, it's working!"

[Lord Jim]

I think this raises interesting questions that go beyond the issue of a cake...

(The case we had here recently about the baker in Colorado who wouldn't do the wedding cake for a gay couple isn't going to go any further legally; rather than go to court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued it's ruling, he simply went out of the business of making wedding cakes altogether:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-ba ... tion-case/ )

I don't know what the operative laws are in the UK, (of which of course, Northern Ireland is a part) but here in the US, I think this raises some questions, beyond even the religious objection issue...moral and ethical objections...

Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake that says "Heil Hitler" commemorating Hitler's birthday that's been ordered by the local Aryan Nation group?

Should an African-American who owns a print shop be required to print up posters for a KKK rally?

Or (returning to the religious) should a devout Muslim with a print shop be required to print up bumper stickers that say, "Muhammad Was A Child Molester"...

My personal impulse would be to say no, in all three cases...(And I suspect that would be the impulse of many who feel that requiring the baker to bake a cake with a message calling for legalizing gay marriage, to which he is ethically opposed, to be totally proper)

If there's a difference here, what's the difference? Is it because "sexual orientation" is a legally protected class, while "political orientation" isn't? And if so, what's the rationale for that difference?

Maybe that's too many questions for one topic...

[Long Run]

And then there is the practical concern. Is it a good idea to force someone who doesn't want to make a cake to do so in the context of getting the best cake for the expenditure? People have to eat the thing, after all.

[Lord Jim]

That's an excellent point...

I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat something made by someone who required a court order to get them to make it.. .

[Long Run]

If there's a difference here, what's the difference? Is it because "sexual orientation" is a legally protected class, while "political orientation" isn't? And if so, what's the rationale for that difference?

You make a good distinction. For the cake above, the baker is being forced to make a political statement; the customer who wants to spread this message may be straight or gay. As a result, the situation is more like the hypotheticals you presented where someone is being asked to participate in making a political statement they do not agree with. In contrast, if the cake was to be a gay marriage wedding cake (or similar commitment ceremony), then the baker has less of an argument -- the customers aren't making a political statement, they just want a cake for their event. Although, in the U.S., after the Hobby Lobby case, one can make the argument that a baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay marriage if that violates the baker's religious beliefs.

[Lord Jim]

You make a good distinction. For the cake above, the baker is being forced to make a political statement; the customer who wants to spread this message may be straight or gay. As a result, the situation is more like the hypotheticals you presented where someone is being asked to participate in making a political statement they do not agree with. In contrast, if the cake was to be a gay marriage wedding cake (or similar commitment ceremony), then the baker has less of an argument -- the customers aren't making a political statement, they just want a cake for their event.

That summarizes my point more concisely than I did...(which is not something I say very often... )

In this case, (unlike just making the cake for the wedding) the baker is being required to apply his artistic and professional skills to create a political message that he is morally and ethically opposed to...(just like the three hypothetical examples I gave)

Although, in the U.S., after the Hobby Lobby case, one can make the argument that a baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay marriage if that violates the baker's religious beliefs.

That's also a good point...

And in the baker's case we're not even talking about a "closely held" "family owned" corporation...he's a sole proprietor...

[Guinevere]

Oh FFS - this is a private dispute, between private parties, it has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. You know better, Long Run.....

[rubato]

? the baker is no more being 'forced' to engage in speech he disagrees with than is a newspaper publisher who accepts money for an ad for Ford cars if he drives a Volkswagen.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Car ads are political statements? Do Ford drivers have ethical, moral or religious objections to Volkswagens?

If the answers to both of those questions is "yes", you've got an apt analogy...

Otherwise not so much...

ETA

And I assume that in the three examples I gave:

Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake that says "Heil Hitler" commemorating Hitler's birthday that's been ordered by the local Aryan Nation group?

Should an African-American who owns a print shop be required to print up posters for a KKK rally?

Or (returning to the religious) should a devout Muslim with a print shop be required to print up bumper stickers that say, "Muhammad Was A Child Molester"...

Your answer would be something like, "Yes, absolutely the law should require that they do those things. It's no different than a newspaper publisher who prefers Burger King running an ad in his paper for McDonald's"

[rubato]

Oh stop being obtuse.

Print shops print campaign posters and bumperstickers for politicians and initiatives they do not support either. And someone who has watched television and recalled it (maybe they were sober?) can tell you that television stations run ads for things they don't support either. Calling the cake-making 'forced speech' is just an unthinking argument for credulous people.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

You're the one who's being obtuse...(well, opaque actually...)


Television stations are regulated by the FCC; the last time I checked bakeries and print shops aren't. (And FYI, TV stations and networks refuse to run ads all the time for one reason or another.)

Print shops print campaign posters and bumperstickers for politicians and initiatives they do not support either.

Of course they do, and no one's arguing that they shouldn't if they so choose...

And if the Jewish baker in my example chooses to accept the money from the Aryan Nation group and bake the "Heil Hitler" birthday cake, that's certainly his right...

The issue that we're discussing here, (that I really would have thought was quite obvious) is whether or not that hypothetical baker (or anyone else in an analogous situation) should be legally compelled to do so...

Or should they have the right to say, "No thank you, I am morally/ethically/religiously opposed to that message, and I refuse to provide my skill and service to produce and promote it. Please take your business elsewhere."

So I'll ask you again:

Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake that says "Heil Hitler" commemorating Hitler's birthday that's been ordered by the local Aryan Nation group?

Should an African-American who owns a print shop be required to print up posters for a KKK rally?

Or (returning to the religious) should a devout Muslim with a print shop be required to print up bumper stickers that say, "Muhammad Was A Child Molester"...

Is that clear enough for you?

[Big RR]

Jim--I can agree with your position in the abstract, and would answer no to the questions as you posed them, but it also opens the doors for illegal discrimination. Leave same sex marriage--should a baker who doesn't think people of different races should marry be permitted to refuse to do business and sell a cake (just a plain wedding cake without a message on it) to them? I presume, based on your previous posts, you would answer no, but where and how do we draw the line?

In the best of all worlds where there were an infinite number of every trade represented, we could say people can do or not do business with whom they wish, but such is not the case. Indeed, that's why we have laws about discrimination. IMHO, while I think a businessman could validly refuse to endorse a political view, the mere act of doing business does not equate endorsement. Nor would putting the names on the cake, even if they were ethnic names that suggested interracial marriage. In the situations you presented, I lean toward saying it is overtly political speech, but would baking a cake for the NAACP founding date party be so? I lean toward no.

[Guinevere]

The EU Treaty forbids discrimination on any ground, including sexual orientation:

Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

The Preamble to the treaty states:

Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.

The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of services, goods and capital, and the freedom of establishment.

Given these two statements, I'd say yes, the Baker cannot discriminate in the provision of cake-baking services based on sexual orientation, or political belief, and if he provides custom cake baking services to the public, he has to bake this one.

[Scooter]

and they're doing this by sexualizing characters from a show meant for toddlers.

Was it "sexualizing" when Miss Piggy and Kermit got married? Then why is it "sexualizing" to suggest that Bert and Ernie are married.

[Gob]

Cos they might bum each other...

Inter species? Couldn't happen.

[Big RR]

I did hear once Miss Piggy had a frog in her throat.

[Gob]

ROTFLMFFAO!!!