Are your creative talents your own?

[Gob]

Lawyer says Christian bakery case could affect Muslims and atheists

Wed 18 Mar 2015
By Aaron James

A human rights lawyer and senior barrister said the ruling of a discrimination case against a Christian bakery could have significant implications for other religions and atheists.

The Equality Commission of Northern Ireland (ECNI) is supporting Gareth Lee. It launched the case against Ashers bakery after it refused to make Mr Lee a cake supporting gay marriage.

Aidan O'Neill QC, who is working for the Christian Institute that is supporting Ashers Bakery, said if the discrimination case rules in Mr Lee's favour, it could mean Muslims and atheists will have to make products which go against their beliefs.

Mr O'Neill provided several examples, such as a Muslim printer having to publish a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, or a lesbian T-shirt printer having to print shirts saying that gay marriage is an "abomination".

He told the Christian Institute: "This is a truly alarming case with far-reaching implications for freedom of speech. It's wrong to force people to use their creative skills to promote a cause they fundamentally disagree with.

"This is about taking issue with the message not the messenger. It's about principles not personalities.

"The ECNI say it’s about discrimination. They are correct as it is Ashers which is being discriminated against for the Christian views of the owners.

"Instead of promoting equality, the ECNI want to make people who believe in traditional marriage second class citizens."

Mr Lee is seeking £500 compensation "for injury to feeling, loss and damage sustained by him as a result of this refusal" and an official declaration that he was discriminated against, according to Mr O'Neill.

[rubato]

How is this different from the creative talents of Restauranteurs? Hoteliers? Car mechanics?

Or should we permit them all to discriminate based on their religious beliefs?


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Mr Lee is seeking £500 compensation "for injury to feeling, loss and damage sustained by him as a result of this refusal" and an official declaration that he was discriminated against, according to Mr O'Neill.

If he were to win, which he shouldn't, he should only be awarded a gay cake. Mr Lee is too sensitive to live in today's world. He needs to quit ordering cakes that make controversial statements and Man Up...

[MajGenl.Meade]

How is this different from the creative talents of Restauranteurs? Hoteliers? Car mechanics?

Or should we permit them all to discriminate based on their religious beliefs?
yrs,
rubato

Well let's see... the store is not refusing to serve the man a cake. They are refusing to be forced to endorse homosexuality on a cake. Should a person be forced by law to write something they find offensive? I hope they would also refuse to write on a cake "Let's kill Moslems" or "Kanye West is a genius".

Car mechanics, restaurateurs (note spelling), hoteliers would have to refuse service at all in order to be naughty. That is how the cases differ.

Perhaps if Earl Scheib refused to paint a homosexual's car with messages endorsing that proclivity, that would be analogous.

(It boots nothing to claim that the withheld service is not the cake but the writing on the cake. Any cake decorator is entitled to decide whether or not they wish to write a particular slogan or word).

[Guinevere]

Hooey and you know it. The bake shop is a place of public accommodation and I expect they advertise "custom cakes" not "custom cakes"*

* unless we don't like what you want to put on the cake you're paying for (which is exactly a refusal of service)


So what if they don't want to do cakes for blacks, or anyone over 50, or ugly buttheads? All part of their creativity?

[MajGenl.Meade]

There you go, confusing language with product. They don't have to write "Fuck Lawyers" on a cake if I go in and order that special message. They do have to serve me a cake.

[Guinevere]

They do, because I ordered a decorated cake that says "Fuck Lawyers" in their pretty script, that they advertise, not just a plain old cake I could get at any grocery store.

[rubato]

"... refused to make Mr Lee a cake supporting gay marriage. ... "

Not that it is determinative, but the design is undefined. Writing is not mentioned. Neither is whether there was a negotiation between the 'cake artist' and his client about what designs might be mutually agreeable. The "artist" apparently didn't suggest that he/she make a cake and then supply the decorative figures separately. Perhaps if he had made a small effort they could have found a mutually agreeable solution.


Homophobes are fighting desperately for those last few ways they can try to persecute gay people.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

They do, because I ordered a decorated cake that says "Fuck Lawyers" in their pretty script, that they advertise, not just a plain old cake I could get at any grocery store.

Er... no, again. Non-scum people would refuse to write such a thing. It's disgusting and objectionable.

[Lord Jim]

It's disgusting and objectionable.

Now hold on a minute...

You're assuming that "Fuck Lawyers" is intended as an insult...

It could be meant to imply that lawyers make great lovers so one should "Fuck Lawyers"...

A lawyer suggested that possible interpretation to me...

[Guinevere]

Oh no, I think its that *exact* interpretation that Meade objects too....

[rubato]

I don't think he could really be forced to use the word "fuck". Offensive words (other than epithets directed at specific people) exist because they are offensive; there is a collective social agreement that they are offensive without regard to race, religion, sexual identity &c. They exist because having a complete language with a full range of expression requires them. Having a boundary and observing it is one way we express respect. Not observing it is how we express a lack of respect.


So I don't think you could make him write 'fuck' nor should you be able to do so.



yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

A lawyer suggested that possible interpretation to me...

So how would you interpret this?



Guin is exactly right. If you're running a business selling custom cakes to the public, you cannot refuse service to a customer because you (and/or your god) disapprove of his/her sexual orientation or the the ultimate use to which the cake will be put, as long as the customization is not unreasonably beyond what would be provided to any other customer. (And also provided your jurisdiction is one that actually prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.) If you would put a Union Jack on a cake, you can't refuse to put a rainbow flag on a cake. If you're an atheist baker, you can't refuse to make a cake a customer will use for a first communion celebration. However, if you're running a halal doughnut shop, you cannot be forced to make a bacon-crusted doughnut.

It really is that simple.

[Joe Guy]

.....If you're an atheist baker, you can't refuse to make a cake a customer will use for a first communion celebration.

Could that same atheist baker refuse to make that cake if he didn't use his belief being opposed to the customer's as a reason? What if he said that he wouldn't make the cake because the customer was being an asshole?

An asshole is not a protected class, so what legal action could that customer take?

[Lord Jim]

Okay, I'll see your:



and raise you:



What if the local NAMBLA chapter wanted to order a cake with the words "Sex With 10 Year Old Kids Is Great!" written on it? Should the baker be legally required to do that?

I think that some commonsense and fairness to all concerned could prevail here...

I would find nothing wrong with a bakery shop having a stated and open policy like this:

"We will sell a cake to anyone, without regard to race, creed, sex or sexual orientation. However, we reserve the right not to be compelled to include writings or images on the cake that we find morally or ethically offensive. If you require that, please either do it yourself or take your business elsewhere"

They could hang that in their front window, and have folks sign an agreement to it when they place their order...

Simple and fair...

An asshole is not a protected class

Well they certainly think they are...

Of course what else would one expect of an asshole...

[Guinevere]

Simply discriminatory.

[Crackpot]

Yes but being discriminatory isn't necessar a bad thing.

[Lord Jim]

And again, we're not talking about "discrimination" against people here; no discrimination against people whatsoever is involved.

[Lord Jim]

We've had this discussion before...

Television stations all the time refuse to accept commercials to run if they don't meet their "standards"...

Print media does the same thing....

Advertising agencies all the time refuse to accept clients who want to promote messages they don't want to be associated with...

All of this is perfectly legal. Why should this be any different?

This isn't in any way shape or form analogous to a car repair, or seating someone in a restaurant. It is entirely analogous to the examples I gave above, because what's involved here isn't about discriminating against persons...

It's about refusing to be compelled to promote someone else's message...

I have a right to free speech, but I don't have a right to compel you (even by payment if you choose to refuse) to promote my speech.

A person may have the right to want to promote the message "Hang All The Niggers", but that person doesn't have the right to compel me to design a billboard for them with that message, even if I'm in the billboard designing business.

[Joe Guy]

However, if you're running a halal doughnut shop, you cannot be forced to make a bacon-crusted doughnut.

Isn't that the same as forcing a Christian bakery to make a cake supporting gay marriage?